Health 2.0

The Health 2.0 conference returned to San Francisco for the fifth year. Attendance continued to set records at 1500 this time around. The zeitgeist continues to be that of information technologists eager to fix all the problems of health care. With 35% doctors carrying iPads and 85% with smartphones, there is plenty of opportunity for technology, but this year there was also a closer attention to payment models and to incentives for use, both financial and psychological.

In his keynote, Mark Smith, President of the California Health Care Foundation, (photo at right) said that while technologies such as the Internet had transformed banking, travel and research, that medical consultations were still being done the same way as they had for the past fifty years. However, it is not enough to provide technology. He stressed that he wanted to fund projects that incorporated financial models that would encourage use. He said too much of what he’s seen in the past resembled the Underpants Gnomes of South Park, with business models consisting of 1. Invent Widget, 2. ????, 3. Profits!

Smith said that the most important element of any new initiative was that it reduce costs, not just by shifting them around but by reducing the “perverse incentives” that encourage volume above all else. Other opportunities lie in improving convenience to patients, rapid learning for providers on how to make sense of the increasing volume of data, and enrollment for the uninsured. As an example of how this could work, he cited how Kaiser-Permanente’s introduction of Electronic Health Records reduced specialist visits by 25%.

There was plenty of innovation on display on the stage and in the exhibit hall, such as:

• A heart rate tracker from Basis that you wear like a wrist watch.
• A web site from GoodRx that does comparison shopping for prescription drugs.
• Consumer health management and social media systems from WellnessFX, Numera Social, HealthTap, OneRecovery
• GE Intel Care Innovations home monitoring and communication system

One of the most interesting talks was from Alexandra Drane of Eliza. She used her company’s automated phone call system to conduct a survey of patients, asking them to rank the problems in their life in terms of how much those things mattered to them and how much they received support on those issues from the medical establishment. The ratio, which she called the Ostrich Index, was around 1.0 for typical medical issues such as obesity, but far higher for other sources of stress such as consumer debt. Furthermore, people with multiple issues that high Ostrich Indexes were far more likely to suffer from serious illness. Her message to the audience was that it needed to take a much broader perspective on issues that affected health and that “health is life, not what's measured in the doctor's office.”

A version of this post also appears on the SBR Health blog.

Comments

[Steve Stein]

OK, I think with this post, the underpants gnome meme has jumped the shark. In the example given, the ??? is obvious and might even be plausible - SELL WIDGET. This may indeed lead to Profit!, and is the way most actual business plans boil down, depending upon the plausibility of selling the Widget in question.

At least it's more plausible than the business plans of many website-based business plans, where the widget in question is often imaginary.

[Paxil]

The quality of medical care in Florida is the primary responsibility of our medical doctors (MDs) and the educational mandate for our state's medical schools. This is a big issue for those MDs who specialize in the medical and surgical practice of ophthalmology. It should equally be a big concern to the citizens of our state. If we permit our legislators to expand, by legislative fiat rather than education accomplishment, those professionals who can legally treat medical diseases, it portends inferior care. When applied to non MDs, such as optometrists, naturopaths, ARNPs, psychologists and pharmacists, more concern for the quality of health care clearly lies ahead. Perhaps, the focus for our legislators should be the quality of medical care, rather than the dollars available to them from the political action committees.