I read a blurb in ePharmaceuticals about Microsoft teaming up with Scripps Translational Science Institute, Navigenics and Affymetrix "to study the impact of genetic screening on individuals' behavior. The aim is to determine what effect, if any, information about one's chances of contracting a particular disease has on how people live their lives."
"Researchers will study the genomes of up to 10,000 employees and family members of the Scripps Health system in San Diego who volunteer for the project and will monitor changes in their behavior over a 20-year period. Under the plan, Affymetrix will scan participants' genomes and Navigenics will interpret the results and provide participants with guidance on how to lessen the chances of contracting diseases to which they may be genetically predisposed. Participants will be able to store their tests results, and related data, in a Microsoft HealthVault account."
This study is pretty significant to me and I'm sure to the Genomics community - too bad we will have to wait 20 years to see the results. I have had a few conversations, online and off, about the importance of genetic testing and what it will really do to change patient behavior.
One person claimed genetic testing has to be covered by insurance to determine risk factors to enable behavioral change - ie. if you are at risk for diabetes, control your weight and diet. Another person thought that no matter what people know about their "health future" and possible conditions, they will do little to change their behavior.
I am on the fence about testing on a personal level, but feel that people who want to have it done and can afford it, should have it done. 23andMe now offers a $399 personal genetics service - which is pretty hard to pass up. I know that if I found out something horrible, and shared it with my wife, she would want /make me to change my lifestyle to reflect what "might" happen - so that is a deterrent. On the hypocritical flip side, I would like to have my children tested for just that reason.
Last month, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google and husband of Anne Wojcicki, 23andMe's co-founder) wrote on his personal blog about 23andMe and his higher risk of developing Parkinson's. This created a lot more buzz around 23andMe, genetic testing and PD - bringing the issue back into the national forum. I wonder if Google Health and 23andMe will launch their own study?
I am very interested to see what becomes of Scripts study and to see if people will change their behaviors based on their genetic makeup. Perhaps they will start reporting at the 5 year mark to give us a taste of what how patients are trending? Unless there are incentives provided, I doubt many people will change their behavior. ie. people smoke for years, knowing it can kill them, but as soon as their company /health plan offers them an incentive to quit, they try to quit.
I already know I am at risk for diabetes, cancer and heart disease, based on my family history - but one day soon I will get tested to see everything else that is in my DNA. Perhaps it will be this year's Christmas present to the family.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Another Home Robot to Improve Medication Adherence
I found this blurb in the Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare about another home robot to improve medication adherence:
"We have developed a prototype home robot to improve drug compliance. The robot is a small mobile device, capable of autonomous behaviour, as well as remotely controlled operation via a wireless datalink. The robot is capable of face detection and also has a display screen to provide facial feedback to help motivate patients and thus increase their level of compliance. An RFID reader can identify tags attached to different objects, such as bottles, for fluid intake monitoring. A tablet dispenser allows drug compliance monitoring. Despite some limitations, experience with the prototype suggests that simple and low-cost robots may soon become feasible for care of people living alone or in isolation."
Like my previous post about the Carebot, this is pretty creepy, but it can be the future of home eldercare. Think of I, Robot. I do not see how this can work right now, unless a trust level is developed between the patient and the robot. I can imagine a patient ignoring the robot, unless the patient is already engaged in their medication regime, and needs the help to remember.
I'll be interested to see how this rolls out and how their clinical trials improve medication adherence.
"We have developed a prototype home robot to improve drug compliance. The robot is a small mobile device, capable of autonomous behaviour, as well as remotely controlled operation via a wireless datalink. The robot is capable of face detection and also has a display screen to provide facial feedback to help motivate patients and thus increase their level of compliance. An RFID reader can identify tags attached to different objects, such as bottles, for fluid intake monitoring. A tablet dispenser allows drug compliance monitoring. Despite some limitations, experience with the prototype suggests that simple and low-cost robots may soon become feasible for care of people living alone or in isolation."
Like my previous post about the Carebot, this is pretty creepy, but it can be the future of home eldercare. Think of I, Robot. I do not see how this can work right now, unless a trust level is developed between the patient and the robot. I can imagine a patient ignoring the robot, unless the patient is already engaged in their medication regime, and needs the help to remember.
I'll be interested to see how this rolls out and how their clinical trials improve medication adherence.
Death of Health 2.0? Let's Start With A Business Model
There have been a number of blog posts over the last few weeks about the demise of Health 2.0, many of which use the death /merger of Revolution Health signaling the end, as well as a few blog posts supporting the future of the movement. There was some intense debate between esteemed members of the H2.0 community through said blog posts, comments on blog posts and more blog posts - all of which I decided not to comment on because those that were commenting and creating the posts know more about the space than I do.
However, I saw two posts today that I thought summed up the economic situation as it relates to Web 2.0 and the health of Health 2.0.
The first of which was written by Dmitriy Kruglyak, from Trusted MD, a healthcare blogging network that FD I have been a member of since July of 2007.
It includes the famous Sequoia Capital presentation to their portfolio companies, quotes from TechCrunch signaling the "ignoble end of Web 2.0", and Dmitriy's own analysis on how this effects Health 2.0:
"I am not going to beat this dead (dying?) horse. If you paid attention to this blog over last two years you would not be surprised at this turn of event. I will just say that an "average" Health 2.0 company that gets mentioned in the news is typically orders of magnitude lower in terms of traffic, engagement and monetization than their Web 2.0 cousins......As I said time and again, Web 2.0 is becoming just as toxic as dotcom (or subprime mortgages and credit default swaps). Conventional wisdom takes a while to form but this process is picking up pace. You can take a guess what will happen with derivative (copycat) ideas, like Health 2.0."
Doesn't sound very promising. Yet it is true. How can a movement and companies sustain momentum in a down-turned economy if there isn't a sound business model? VCs have been throwing money at companies that are cool, but do not have a sound plan or any intention of making money. I look to Twitter, which is valued around $25M (maybe more now), but does not have a business model, and doesn't plan to make any money in the next couple of years. They just received another round of financing this summer. Granted Twitter is very cool and I use it, but there must be something more going on that I am missing here. The value of the community is how Twitter is valued and what they might be able to make from that. Sounds like Facebook, which was valued at $15B at one point from $150M in earnings.
Same with Health 2.0 companies. Lots of them are very cool, but rely on ad revenue or a freemium package. I signed up for a 60 day trial of a PHR to check it out, but when it came time to "buy" a year subscription, I said "no thanks". There wasn't enough offered for the paid service that I could not get from a free service.
This brings me a post from Ben Heywood, Co-Founder and President of Patients Like Me from last week on the PLM "Value of Openness" blog: "I believe we, as the eHealth community, need to focus on two major goals: 1) solve patients’ problems, and 2) create business models that allow us to do #1....I don’t want to prognosticate about what types of business models will work for all Health 2.0 companies as the industry evolves (because, ultimately, this is an evolution). It’s up to each company to figure that out. I do believe that there’s no wrong path when you keep both those goals in your sights."
And this sums up what needs to happen to keep the Health 2.0 movement alive.
PLM's business model is very straightforward: "We build online communities where patients share structured information about their disease to help themselves and others. In turn, we make money by selling that data." PLM is very transparent, and tell their members this upfront, and members encourage the selling of data, as this will help the pharma companies and device manufactuers improve their offerings to patients. PLM also received $5M in VC financing, so that gives them a bit of a cushion until they turn a profit.
Some Health 2.0 companies have gone under, others (like ZocDoc) are still receiving VC funding. It is an interesting time to be in the infancy of the Health 2.0 movement. I have faith that it will continue as long as the innovators create a needed product and can monetize without charging the consumer in a time when patients are having difficulty paying for their healthcare at the Health 1.0 level.
However, I saw two posts today that I thought summed up the economic situation as it relates to Web 2.0 and the health of Health 2.0.
The first of which was written by Dmitriy Kruglyak, from Trusted MD, a healthcare blogging network that FD I have been a member of since July of 2007.
It includes the famous Sequoia Capital presentation to their portfolio companies, quotes from TechCrunch signaling the "ignoble end of Web 2.0", and Dmitriy's own analysis on how this effects Health 2.0:
"I am not going to beat this dead (dying?) horse. If you paid attention to this blog over last two years you would not be surprised at this turn of event. I will just say that an "average" Health 2.0 company that gets mentioned in the news is typically orders of magnitude lower in terms of traffic, engagement and monetization than their Web 2.0 cousins......As I said time and again, Web 2.0 is becoming just as toxic as dotcom (or subprime mortgages and credit default swaps). Conventional wisdom takes a while to form but this process is picking up pace. You can take a guess what will happen with derivative (copycat) ideas, like Health 2.0."
Doesn't sound very promising. Yet it is true. How can a movement and companies sustain momentum in a down-turned economy if there isn't a sound business model? VCs have been throwing money at companies that are cool, but do not have a sound plan or any intention of making money. I look to Twitter, which is valued around $25M (maybe more now), but does not have a business model, and doesn't plan to make any money in the next couple of years. They just received another round of financing this summer. Granted Twitter is very cool and I use it, but there must be something more going on that I am missing here. The value of the community is how Twitter is valued and what they might be able to make from that. Sounds like Facebook, which was valued at $15B at one point from $150M in earnings.
Same with Health 2.0 companies. Lots of them are very cool, but rely on ad revenue or a freemium package. I signed up for a 60 day trial of a PHR to check it out, but when it came time to "buy" a year subscription, I said "no thanks". There wasn't enough offered for the paid service that I could not get from a free service.
This brings me a post from Ben Heywood, Co-Founder and President of Patients Like Me from last week on the PLM "Value of Openness" blog: "I believe we, as the eHealth community, need to focus on two major goals: 1) solve patients’ problems, and 2) create business models that allow us to do #1....I don’t want to prognosticate about what types of business models will work for all Health 2.0 companies as the industry evolves (because, ultimately, this is an evolution). It’s up to each company to figure that out. I do believe that there’s no wrong path when you keep both those goals in your sights."
And this sums up what needs to happen to keep the Health 2.0 movement alive.
PLM's business model is very straightforward: "We build online communities where patients share structured information about their disease to help themselves and others. In turn, we make money by selling that data." PLM is very transparent, and tell their members this upfront, and members encourage the selling of data, as this will help the pharma companies and device manufactuers improve their offerings to patients. PLM also received $5M in VC financing, so that gives them a bit of a cushion until they turn a profit.
Some Health 2.0 companies have gone under, others (like ZocDoc) are still receiving VC funding. It is an interesting time to be in the infancy of the Health 2.0 movement. I have faith that it will continue as long as the innovators create a needed product and can monetize without charging the consumer in a time when patients are having difficulty paying for their healthcare at the Health 1.0 level.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
InnovationRx Announces Medication Adherence Awareness Month
I found this press release earlier in the week from InnovationRx, announcing a pilot program in CA for their pharmacy based adherence programs. I saw their presentation at the DM colloquium earlier this year and found their services to be very similar to Intelecare's, however InnovationRx is a paid service, not a free service to patients like Intelecare's consumer offerings. Also in the announcement was the declaration of Medication Adherence Awareness month, co-sponsored by the American Pharmacists Association, the FDA OWH and the Pharmacists Planning Service.
Of course I was very excited to hear about Medication Adherence Awareness Month, however I could not find any information on any of the aforementioned partner websites, nor on InnovationRx's website either. I emailed my medication adherence enthusiast buddy Dr. Showalter from AlignMap, and looked at his blog, but no info there either. I even did a Google Search, but could only find InnovationRx's press release (excerpt below).
Every month for me is Medication Adherence Awareness Month, as everyday I educate patients, caregivers, industry executives (Health 2.0 companies, health plans, pharmacies, non-profits, etc...) on the pandemic that is medication non-adherence.
QUICK STORY: My wife and I were at a wedding last weekend for one of her best friends, and inevitably the question of "what do you do" came up. I hate to bore people in social situations about healthcare issues (most of the guests were in the fashion industry and artists, musicians, etc...), but found that everyone I spoke with had no idea the impact medication non-adherence has to patients and the US economy. And they were interested. I even spoke with a heart surgeon, who said "sure I know about medication non-adherence, but I did not know it was so rampant".
So here is a salute to Medication Adherence Awareness Month! Please spread the word and stay adherent to your medications, and let others know about the importance of their doctor's prescribed care plan. 1 in 2 patients does not take their medications as prescribed, costing the US $300 BILLION annually in unnecessary healthcare costs and lost revenue. 84% cite simple forgetfulness as the reason for their non-adherence.
Medication non-adherence is America's Biggest Drug Problem, but it need not be.
From BusinessWire:
"InnovationRx, a wholly owned subsidiary of Innovation Group (UK:TIG: news, chart, profile) , today launched a medication adherence awareness campaign targeting pharmacists and patients in California. The campaign, a pilot for a nationwide effort, aims to provide pharmacists with resources that will help their patients to achieve medication adherence and improve health. InnovationRx is collaborating with the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Women's Health (FDA OWH), and Pharmacists Planning Service, Inc. (PPSI) for this campaign.
Medication non-adherence is a costly and prevalent problem in the United States. As part of Pharmacy/Medication Adherence Awareness Month, InnovationRx and its partners will raise awareness of the consequences of non-adherence and showcase programs that are available to help patients simplify their medication regimen and build reminder systems."
Of course I was very excited to hear about Medication Adherence Awareness Month, however I could not find any information on any of the aforementioned partner websites, nor on InnovationRx's website either. I emailed my medication adherence enthusiast buddy Dr. Showalter from AlignMap, and looked at his blog, but no info there either. I even did a Google Search, but could only find InnovationRx's press release (excerpt below).
Every month for me is Medication Adherence Awareness Month, as everyday I educate patients, caregivers, industry executives (Health 2.0 companies, health plans, pharmacies, non-profits, etc...) on the pandemic that is medication non-adherence.
QUICK STORY: My wife and I were at a wedding last weekend for one of her best friends, and inevitably the question of "what do you do" came up. I hate to bore people in social situations about healthcare issues (most of the guests were in the fashion industry and artists, musicians, etc...), but found that everyone I spoke with had no idea the impact medication non-adherence has to patients and the US economy. And they were interested. I even spoke with a heart surgeon, who said "sure I know about medication non-adherence, but I did not know it was so rampant".
So here is a salute to Medication Adherence Awareness Month! Please spread the word and stay adherent to your medications, and let others know about the importance of their doctor's prescribed care plan. 1 in 2 patients does not take their medications as prescribed, costing the US $300 BILLION annually in unnecessary healthcare costs and lost revenue. 84% cite simple forgetfulness as the reason for their non-adherence.
Medication non-adherence is America's Biggest Drug Problem, but it need not be.
From BusinessWire:
"InnovationRx, a wholly owned subsidiary of Innovation Group (UK:TIG: news, chart, profile) , today launched a medication adherence awareness campaign targeting pharmacists and patients in California. The campaign, a pilot for a nationwide effort, aims to provide pharmacists with resources that will help their patients to achieve medication adherence and improve health. InnovationRx is collaborating with the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Women's Health (FDA OWH), and Pharmacists Planning Service, Inc. (PPSI) for this campaign.
Medication non-adherence is a costly and prevalent problem in the United States. As part of Pharmacy/Medication Adherence Awareness Month, InnovationRx and its partners will raise awareness of the consequences of non-adherence and showcase programs that are available to help patients simplify their medication regimen and build reminder systems."
Friday, October 3, 2008
New Medication Adherence Blog
I discovered a new Medication Adherence blog called Medication Adherence Group 7. Almost as catchy as the title of my blog ;). It appears to be run by "Group 7, University of Texas at Arlington". UT of A also has a two other groups on Blogger: Group 12 and Calvino Saputra which also write blogs.
So far Group 7 have only posted a few posts which mention the causes of non-adherence and what you can do to help stay adherent.
I look forward to seeing how their blog develops.
So far Group 7 have only posted a few posts which mention the causes of non-adherence and what you can do to help stay adherent.
I look forward to seeing how their blog develops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
