Comments on: The Next Phase of Connected Health: Connected Personalized Health

By: jkvedar

jkvedar — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:02:59 +0000

an excellent thought.

By: Jane Allen Calhoun

Jane Allen Calhoun — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:21:56 +0000

It seems the second and third dimension are basically the same reflecting the patient’s knowledge and openness to technology. I suggest the second dimension should be regarding the patient’s level of self-management which might be assessed by a tool such as the Patient Activation Measure (PAM).

By: jkvedar

jkvedar — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:26:28 +0000

You make an excellent point and your story, I’m afraid, is pretty common. The challenge is vexing, because physcians view themselves at the top of the health care chain and have been rewarded for thinking so for decades. This creates a culture that is not as open as one might like to alternative approaches to illness.

By: Diane (consumer)

Diane (consumer) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:11:09 +0000

I think provider readiness is a critical component of success. Speaking from personal experience, my husband’s physician was flat-out insulted when we saw a homeopathic doctor as well as the traditional physician. My husband was diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He had suffered bouts of gout and fatigue for months. The physician’s prognosis was “these drugs for the rest of your life, and see my dietician (nearest appointment: 6 weeks out)”. The homeopathic DR gave my husband (in just 2 weeks): hope for getting off the medication and a diet that addressed ALL of his issues, including scientific reasons why the gout would likely subside. The traditional phsyician’s dietician only decreased the carbs, with no other dietary limits (thereby NOT addressing the high blood pressure, cholesterol, fats, sodium, etc). Since my husband chose to follow the stricter diet, he has lost 30 pounds, decreased his blood pressure and avoided gout. His traditional physician has not returned any of 3 calls.

If Healthrageous, or any other patient-responsiblity solution is going to be successful where the rubber meets the road — between Provider and Patient — it is imperative that the provider community be prepared to support their patient’s efforts.

By: paul rice

paul rice — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:11:15 +0000

I have waited a little time to join the thread of the conversation conscious that there are potentially significant cultural and systemic differences each side of the Atlantic because of how we organise and experience health care. I absolutely concur with Joe’s initial list as severity of disease, connectivity and patient readiness are key. I also think that because of the barriers to market entry existing “trusted” brands need to be prepared to innovate in developing service models that incorporate technology. The pay off for them going forward is that they can enjoy competitive market advantage as consumer expectations develop. What was radical today becomes tomorrows norm as the user/patient experiences a wholly different and postive relationship with the management of their disease. If I am currently significantly restricted in pursuing my preferences in activities of daily living because of morbidities associated with my condition and I achieve more controlled health status and more confidence in self management through a care management/technology combo I am going to value it highly in every sense. I am not going back to that previous state – why would I. A cardiac surgeon talked to me about the game changing experience in his discipline of realising that improved outcomes at lower risk with shorter recovery periods for patients could be achieved by less interventionist procedures to unblock furred arteries or remove obstructions. This became “the way things are done around here” and the specialty norm in an incredibly short time. We need a pull from consumers – who need to know/experience the benefits – and a push from professionals who are prepared to rethink their role as experts in 21st C, with the system incentives (and penalties) aligned, to get scale and pace. The technologists aren’t off the hook though, reliability is increasingly robust but interconnectivity is critical. Also high volume users have comorbidities and increasing cognitive impairment (dementia), single disease service models have had their day.

By: Employers, evangelize! and other mHealth news | mobihealthnews

Employers, evangelize! and other mHealth news | mobihealthnews — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:58:10 +0000

[...] Center for Connected Health inspired a project in Fiji: “I decided to do a voluntourism trip in April to a remote Fijian clinic, The Mission at Natuvu Creek… I decided on a design which would allow them to go completely paperless: a centrally located EMR published over a wi-fi network, accessed using multiple laptops.” More ALSO: Dr. Joe Kvedar’s recent blog post on the Center’s recently spun out startup, Healthrageous. More [...]

By: Pandas, Lobsters, and Health Care | e-Patients.net

Pandas, Lobsters, and Health Care | e-Patients.net — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:52:30 +0000

[...] Kvedar asks an excellent question in his post, The Next Phase of Connected Health: Connected Personalized Health: What are the best variables to consider when taking connected health programs from pilot to [...]

By: Dennis (Investigator/Negotiator) at Medical BillDog

Dennis (Investigator/Negotiator) at Medical BillDog — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:16:21 +0000

I think leaving out the providers out makes for a better model. Provider readiness should be subsumed by patient-readiness. In other words, part of patient readiness to engage in a connected health intervention has to be that she’s found a provider who will work with her or at least can find one. It might sound like I’m putting too much of a burden on the patient, but really, empowered patients pick their own providers. No one’s selected a provider for me since I left the Navy over twenty years ago.

I’d leave the three dimensions alone. I think you nailed it.

By: jkvedar

jkvedar — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:57:24 +0000

I don’t have a crystal ball, but there are many instances in the health reform bill that direct the large government payer, Medicare, to pay for outcomes and quality, rather than units of service. When that becomes a reality, providers will adopt this sort of approach as a business expense as it results in improved quality and improved efficiency

By: BJ Cook

BJ Cook — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:35:49 +0000

How does all this fit into Obama’s health care plan? This software won’t be free and I’m guessing a lot of people won’t pay for it themselves so will it be included in health plans?