Showing posts with label consumer-directed healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer-directed healthcare. Show all posts

3.7.08

OPEN DHS Workshop July 7th - Tackling Consumer-Directed Genetic Testing

Although I can't claim to have a personal interest in genomics (ha ha), crusading for personalized, consumer-directed healthcare is definitely a passion.

Lately there's been an unfortunate plentitude of opportunity for e-patient, consumer health advocates to become involved in the debate surrounding who 'owns' our genetic information and how we may legally obtain access to it (or not).

The US government is trying to keep up.


Our DHHS Secretary named "The Personalized Health Care Initiative" one of 10 priority areas for the department - with the goal of "engaging in helping to create a health care system that is consumer-centric, preventative, and personalized."

Next week, Matthew Holt of The Health Care Blog and co-founder of the Health 2.0 Conferences will be speaking at a US Dept. of Health and Human Services workshop tackling these issues.

I'm attending at Matthew's invitation, and thanks to Berci Mesko's organization of the 23andme seminar in Second Life, I'm well prepared.
It's an open meeting, and the consumer perspective is highlighted. As Matthew says, it's a 'star-studded' event - check out rosters for the Q&A panels (speaker bios here).

If you're in DC, VA, or MD, PLEASE
mark your calendars and participate if at all possible.
Register online here.

The conference will also be available via webcast - register for that here.

In the interests of full disclosure and transparency (and so you can't use the click-through requirement as an excuse for not attending), I'm also posting full details of the meeting below:

The workshop will explore the information needs of consumers in utilizing consumer-directed genetic testing services and will be held on Monday, July 7, in Washington , D.C. The attached document contains a brief meeting description and the agenda. Registration is available at http://events.SignUp4.com/ASPE.

The Personalized Health Care Initiative at the US Department of Health and Human Services is one of the Secretary’s ten priority areas and has been engaged in helping to create a health care system that is consumer-centric, preventative, and personalized. An upcoming development for this personalized system is an increased understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Recently, services have emerged that provide genome-based health information directly to consumers. These new services have occasioned considerable press and public attention. At the same time, questions have been raised quickly regarding the real value of these services to consumers.

The Personalized Health Care Initiative has conceptualized a workshop to explore the information needs of consumers in utilizing consumer-directed genetic testing services. The workshop will be held on July 7 at the Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, DC (and via the web) and is aimed at the public benefit where stakeholders can bring differing perspectives and look toward actions that will help consumers make informed use of genome-based health information services. It is important to emphasize that the consumer perspective is the theme.

AGENDA

  • 12:30 – 12:45 pm: Welcome, Meeting Objectives and Overview, Richard Campanelli, JD Counselor to the Secretary for Science and Public Health, US Department of Health and Human Services
  • 12:45 – 1:05 pm: Medical decision-making empowered by genomic information, Eric Topol, MD, Director, Scripps Translational Science Institute, Dean, Scripps School of Medicine

  • 1:05 – 1:30 pm Consumer interest in health and genomic information, Steve Bodhaine, MBA, Group President, Research/Product Development, Yankelovich
  • 1:30 – 2:30 pm Panel 1: What is the consumer interest in genome-based health information?
  • 1:30 – 2:10 pm Panel Discussion
  • 2:10 – 2:30 pm Q&A, Linda Avey, Co-founder, 23andMe, Inc., Esther Dyson, EDventure Holdings, Rebecca Fisher, MLIS, Patient Advocate, Matthew Holt, Co-founder Health 2.0 Conference
  • 2:30 – 2:45 pm Break
  • 2:45 – 4:00 pm Panel 2: Is the testing process reliable, and is the information’s privacy maintained?
  • 2:45 – 3:25 pm Panel Discussion
  • 3:25 – 4:00 pm Q&A, Deven McGraw, JD, MPH, Director, Health Privacy Project, Center for Democracy and Technology, Ryan Phelan, Founder and CEO, DNA Direct, Kari Stefansson, MD, Dr. Med President, CEO, and Director, deCODE genetics, Reed Tuckson, MD, FACP, Executive Vice President and Chief of Medical Affairs, UnitedHealth Group
  • 4:00 – 5:15 pm Panel 3: What is currently useful to consumers, and what can they expect in the future?
  • 4:00 – 4:50 pm Panel Discussion
  • 4:50 – 5:15 pm Q&A, Mari Baker, President and CEO, Navigenics, Katherine Johansen, PhD, Senior Scientist, American Medical Association Program in Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Nancy Johnson, Senior Public Policy Advisor, Baker Donelson, Ronni Sandroff, MA, Director/Editor, Health and Family Information, Consumer Reports, Angela Trepanier MS, CGC, President, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Assistant Professor, Clinical Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University
  • 5:15 – 5:30 pm: Looking to the future of consumer services (moderated discussion), Michael Cowan, MD, Chief Medical Officer, BearingPoint 3


27.5.08

Gauntlet is Thrown - Why I Believe in Consumer-Centric Care II

Blogger's Note: This lengthy post attempts to make up for time lost during last week's vacation, so if you're looking for a quick, easy read, come back tomorrow. If you've been waiting for a follow up to earlier posts dealing with consumer-centric healthcare, take a deep breath and read on. Better yet, join the conversation. When I say "healthcare consumer," I mean YOU.

“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects the wind; the realist adjusts the sails” — Anonymous

Recently I wrote this 'dear diary' style confessional post, which is quite a departure from my normal approach to writing for Health Management Rx. I took a big risk in revealing my patient backstory, but I believe it's paid off.

The post details (at a personal level) why I believe (at a professional level) a consumer-centric orientation is the only thing that can improve both efficiency and empathy within our healthcare system.

I paused before hitting the “publish” button on this post numerous times, but a wise blogger (thanks Drew!) told me that at some point revealing a personal anecdote contributes sufficient value to the ongoing discussion -especially when it’s coming from an e-patient.

Today’s post, then, is concerned with:

1. Continuing the conversation;

2. Formatting a response that drives readers toward further discussion; and

3. How to follow through and develop new business ideas that expand the current limited scope of the traditional 'healthcare consumer' (with actual scenarios detailing new business approaches).

Since I’ve committed a cardinal blogger's error by waiting so long to publish a follow-up post, I suggest you read the original post first, as well as the comments.

Now on to Part II of Why I Believe in Consumer Centric Care.

First, we must stop treating patients and other healthcare consumers as the "cheap gas that fuels our sector."

If you don't believe this, stop reading now.

The quote above is from the blog "Perspectives from the Pipeline," detailing the career of rising nonprofit czarina Rosetta Thurman - Rosetta, couldn't have said it better. (Congrats again on your new professorship you amazing nonprofit leader you!)

Although Rosetta was discussing the 'disposable' nature of young, idealistic nonprof employees who are used/abused until they burn out and leave 503c waters for greener corporate pastures, the quote also applies aptly to how we currently bill and treat patient encounters in the US healthcare system.

Healthcare consumers are currently (pick one):

A. The "cheap gas that fuels our sector;"

B. Passive receivers of care 'products' and service bundles;

C. Brief, disposable interludes of episodic care delivery; or

D. An illustration of how our interactions with providers are ruled by payment, pricing, and promotion of our current hierarchical structure.

E. All of the above.

If you answered all of the above, there's only one system big enough and powerful enough to connect disparate consumer segments and generate a small series of 'microquake' developments that aggregate into big change - the web.

Future web-based, consumer-directed applications, a subsector of HIT that has yet to live up to its potential, present an opportunity to do just this.

Here's my position: The entrepreneurial creation of semantic web applications is the only movement chugging along fast enough to join patients and providers before the healthcare spend bankrupts our economy.

We can't rely totally on government, advocacy groups like IHI, certification bodies like JCAHO, etc. A commerce-based, consumer-centric approach, driven by companies that pave the way using web-based tech, is the only thing that will move us quickly towards improvement. If a significant portion of the American population starts using 'killer apps' for healthcare, the rest of these organizations will jump onboard.

(Blogger's Note: If you want to hear more about how to harness the power of the semantic web to advance consumer-centric care modalities, come watch as co-author and neXthealth partner in crime Maarten den Braber and I present the concept at SWWS 08 in July - we'll be talking about how the "Semantic Web Sparks Evolution of Health 2.0" and providing "A Road Map to Consumer-Centric Healthcare").

Taking a completely understandable, traditional healthcare perspective, some readers respectfully disagree.

After reading my post and some earlier commentary on PHRs, Dr. Ian Furst, one of the most prolific medblog commentors I know, and whom I'll have the great fortune to meet at Medicine 2.0 Congress, threw down this gauntlet.

After rereading Ian's post, I find one of the only points where our opinions truly differ is that I do believe the internet concretely allows physicians (and patients) to reach out to each other with “greater richness.”

I am, however, sorry to see Ian takes exception to my assertion (and certainly not mine alone) that the web will help save healthcare – the Health 2.0, consumer-centric partyline "goes that the internet will allow you’re [sic] doctor to reach more people with greater richness than ever before. Don’t believe them – it’s bullshit."

And yet the internet is allowing us to do just this. All of our blogs allow us to do this. Ian's blog, written and richly informed by his commitment to his profession as a doctor, allows him to do just that, doesn't it?

To Ian: Do your patients read your blog? Do you tell them about it during visits? Do you invite them to comment and participate in the online conversation?

I won't argue with most of the rest of Ian's entry, as it's spot on - including the point that we're still stuck in Web 1.0 and Health 1.0. I agree wholeheartedly.

As an industry (the business of healthcare) and as an 'art', we're still largely focused on what content, sometimes on what content + community (Health 2.0) can do for primary care, when we need to be moving beyond and focusing on developing a realistic roadmap that will guide us towards efficient, empathic consumer-centric care in a wide spectrum of sectors.

And yes, this means breaking wide the 'traditional' definition of consumers in healthcare mentioned in the comments section by Dr. Wes.

First, my confessional style was not a play for anyone's pity - I don't need or want it - but rather a plea for professionalism and respect as we continue to advance the conversations between patient and provider on how to improve the system for both.

If one more person who reads it begins to think of herself as as 'healthcare consumer' then we're one step closer to improving care, one person, one patient, one provider, one caregiver at a time.

After reading responses and comments from Ian, Dr. Wes, and Drew from Our Own System, I am extremely proud to know professional physicians (and health admin students - there IS hope for the future Drew!) who are equally passionate about improving doctor-physician relationships.

So here's point 2 for the day: We obviously 'get it' here in the blogosphere, and although we differ on smaller issues (Just how much DOES a good consumer website cost, Georgia? IBM?) we're still talking to those with similar views and then patting ourselves on the proverbial backs.

We've ALL got to get out there and pay it forward.

I'm walking the walk here in Holland with a bunch of amazing folks founding neXthealth NL.

What are you doing, dear readers, to talk about consumer-centric care outside our comfort zones? Become cheerleaders for the cause? Seek out voices of dissent?

What we need in the medical and healthcare blogosphere is a classic case of "less me, more we"…How do we connect patient-centric medicine bloggers with policy wonks?

If we get that debate going we might see some real fireworks, instead of just pushing at each other with sticks to drive site traffic.

My question for today is this, dear readers:


Why would we NOT try ANY and ALL measures available to improve patient care, even if it is a PHR designed by a consumer-company or a consumer portal that costs 5.2M?

Let's answer the question above using actual business case scenarios, and detailing how future web-based developments may help expand the current healthcare consumer spectrum.

Dr. Wes detailed a dose of healthy skepticism about 'consumer centric care' in the comments section of my original post.

He implied that if I was in an ambulance on my way to an ER I wouldn't stop and check the ER's ratings on my mobile phone. Let's start with this example and examine how the semantic web might help drive us towards consumer-centric care.

First, Dr. Wes's assertion is not entirely correct. My main point with pushing the consumer-centric discussion is that if companies build these types of services, SMARTLY consumers will use them.

If a mobile, web-based app was available on my Blackberry for me to quickly and easily access ER ratings info (within the 'holy trinity'- 3 clicks to information access), I would use it - yes, even from the back of an ambulance if I was capable of doing so.

Of course, that's the big "IF"...and there's simply no way to predict if I'll be conscious and cognizant enough to use such a service. But I'm not the only consumer who would find such data valuable in this scenario. Let's flesh out the example a bit.

Scenario I using Dr. Wes's example: PATIENT AS CONSUMER (during care).
If I was in an ambulance on the way to an ER and physically/mentally able to use my mobile phone and access a web-based app that lets me check quality and safety ratings (i.e. not coding and conscious), I might indeed check to see if an ER was listed in the top 10 in my area.

If I have a rare, chronic condition for which I'm currently under treatment, I might also use this service to send an email to my treating specialist using my cell's address book, letting the office know I'm on my way to that ER. This would provide continuity of care, especially if my condition were to worsen en route or after arrival.

Scenario II using Dr. Wes's example: PATIENT AS CONSUMER (prior to care).
But most likely I wouldn’t NEED to go that far, because if I was conscious I’d be able to recall looking at a website to see top EDs BEFORE I’d need them, when I read a blog post or press release or saw a news article about this new 'killer' app (no pun intended).

And now I'll push the point even further.

Follow along carefully because here's where things really get going.

When we succeed in creating a truly consumer-centric American healthcare system, quick-thinking, fast-moving startups will create services and products for consumers outside the 'traditional' categories, like patient and provider.


Scenario III using Dr. Wes's example: AMBULANCE CREW AS CONSUMER.
In this instance, if I was on my way to an ED, my ambulance crew might use a web-based application to check wait times/availability at several area hospitals simultaneously without radioing to all separately.

This would allow them to choose a route more quickly, accept it on the mobile device, and instantaneously upload driving directions to the in-ambulance GPS unit. Meanwhile this killer 'Paramedic 911' app might also transmit arrival time and patient stats to the hospital ER prior to arrival.

In this case the paramedic crew is the 'consumer.'

Scenario IV using Dr. Wes's example: FAMILY/FRIENDS AS CONSUMER.
Also, even if I’m unconscious, if I’m in an accident or injury and a family member, friend or spouse is following the ambulance, there’s a good chance THEY would be checking on a mobile, web-based application to see if the hospital where we were headed was highly rated.

In this case the family member following my ambulance is the 'consumer.'

The scenarios above are a bit out there, but not too far out in the future - the web-based infrastructure to build these services is in place.

Now all it takes are startup teams with vision, drive, a really good developer or 20, and dollars. Health 2.0, neXthealth NL crews - who wants to take these concepts and make them a reality?

One of my main points in the original post was that current ‘consumer-centric care’ includes both the patient and physician in the care process, which may (or may not) be facilitated by technology and ‘corporations.’

One of my main points today is that a fully-realized ‘consumer-centric’ system involves many more parties than just the patient and physician. So anyone using a mobile phone to check hospital rankings then becomes a consumer (including the hospital Board member or exec who is checking to see how they rate).

And a further point of clarification. I don't seek to raise the perspective of the patient over that of the physician. To the contrary - I in no way want to unilaterally make “all” of my healthcare decisions, and I don't want the web to replace the relationship I have with my docs. I want it to augment and support that relationship.

It is this example of mobile, highly personal interaction with tech that demonstrates perfectly my deep, individual support of your main theses, Drs. Ian and Wes - that relationships between physicians and patients are intensely personal, and that ANY tool we test, including the web, MUST improve communications and care rather than clutter up the airwaves.

Tools not used are tools wasted waiting for an applied purpose.

Tools used incorrectly are a drain on systemic productivity.

But who currently defines whether or not the tools that enable us to possibly enhance care are used "incorrectly?"

In a more 'democratic' system, BOTH patients and providers, as partners in care, must co-determine which tools allow us to move towards more efficient, empathic, consumer-centric delivery.

In a more democratic healthcare system then, many segments of consumers will use tools such as the web to move towards consumer-centric care.

But first, give e-patients - empowered patients - the tools we need to communicate better with our physicians, to harness the power of personal goal setting (and attainment), and that, my physician friends, will change "our" system.

The web is just one of many tools in our arsenal to save healthcare, but it is a big honking John Deere rather than a wimpy garden spade.

My point is that nothing short of massive collaboration, continuously evolving entrepreneurial activity, and a new way to view the communications between all stakeholders in the healthcare system will save the private-public hybrid that is the current American healthcare system.

The web is ready and waiting for companies to develop applications that do just that.

The government is also getting ready though…

But Dr. Wes's point in the comments section is excellent - it's absolutely going to take a he&% of a lot more than a government/industry partnership, as illustrate by this example of Philly's failed 'universal wireless' project.

Do we want to see federally funded universal care programs administered by HMOs enacted in 2010 and failing by 2015?

And us consumers?

We're tired to death of having traditional choke-hold messages forced down our captive throats in other industries - but we haven't yet risen up to protest spoon-feeding (or more aptly syringe-feeding) in healthcare.

We haven't yet seen the rise of consumer-oriented, web-based service companies that show us the light, show us how things could be. That show us we can look and want and need and buy and participate more in BOTH the art and the business of getting better.

But these firms are out there, and the scenarios I describe above are on the way - make no mistake.


The telephone, the internet, Google, neXthealth - some entrepreneur will step up and show us what being at the center of the healthcare web, literally and in tech lexicon, can look like.

And once we realize all the choices out there, we'll need help navigating the system.


Lucky for you, Dr. Wes, we're still at the point where we'll largely come to our docs for this type of assistance.

We still trust you MDs...
we don’t want to replace you with tech - let's all keep it that way by being open beta testers of innovations that could improve care -web-based or otherwise.

The mainstream media, in addition to the blogosphere, are already on the case, one prophet at a time, convincing consumers to move towards proactive wellness goalsetting.

It's happening in other industries. Let's take telecom again for example...30 percent of us now receive most or even ALL of our calls on cell phones.

As a physician, you appropriately emphasize the importance of communication. So, Dr., how are you adapting your communication style to keep up with new conversational pathways?

It's only a matter of time before consumers realize our healthcare is entrenched in methodologies as antiquated as the gramophone.

Yes, medical technologies wide and wonderful have been introduced. But the care process, the actual design of hospital and healthcare delivery, has changed little since the Roaring 20s.

We also thought we would be fine without penicillin, the x-ray, respirators, ex-fixators, chemotherapy. Of course we would - we didn't know any better until a game-changing innovation, often, gasp, a technology, modified the care process.

And, my friend, I warn you - once we know this, and our money talks, where we can't interact at will - we will walk. And you will too.

Your best hope, if you want to avoid this big-bang evolution, is to pray for federally-funded healthcare and a completely socialized system.

Plus, only 14% of 940,000 docs in the US have minimally functioning EMRs in place, so you've got 84% of market capitalization to rest your laurels upon before you have to actually implement change.

I say the semantic web will save healthcare because it will help unleash increasingly powerful market forces of supply and demand.


But it is certainly not the ONLY factor to do so - current disruptive innovations like retail clinics and "focused factory" specialty hospitals, as well as concierge care, all turn consumers minds (consumers = patients, providers, payors, physicians, pundits, etc.) to a more robust discussion of value in healthcare...


And this circles us right back around to the control issue.

What IS value in the current healthcare system? Who defines it? And why the he@% didn't anybody invite patients to the prom sooner?

Vanderbilt sets the bar higher than ever before with a “no tolerance for unprofessional behavior.” The goal? To ensure a quality patient experience. Get it? Professional behavior in the medical sector = QUALITY EXPERIENCE.

Until we start thinking, developing, and implementing tools to ensure a quality experience for ALL consumers who interact with the healthcare system, we're still sitting dead in the water. Get going. Stop waiting for someone else to throw you the oars.

31.3.08

Shifting The Healthcare Spend to Consumers: CDHP Offerings Triple in 1 Year

Here's an interesting indicator in the health-care consumerism debate (hat tip to HealthLeaders Media yet again for the link).

8.8% of surveyed employers in this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette study covering WV, PA, and Ohio are offering high-deductible or 'catastrophic' coverage plans, but that's an almost 300% increase from the 2007 survey (2.5% offering CDHPs).

Even more interesting, 84% of firms surveyed by Cowden Associates "are not likely" to offer the plans or "have no interest in them."

Here's more food for thought - when the system fails to answer consumer demand according to patients' self-defined desires, we end up paying penalties like the ED overuse crisis.

When the system does not innovate, patients will create 'work-arounds,' or modified care processes that address individual supply and demand concerns.

Allow me to reach back into my English Literature schooling to illustrate the concept with metaphor (sometimes I miss the days when Shakespeare's sonnets seemed life-altering...).

Picture in your mind the stars. It's no coincidence I'm equating future healthcare innovations with the heavens rather than the purgatory which represents today's hospital consumer experience.

In the current clouded system, each consumer ends up creating an insular healthcare economy where she is at the center and pulls orbiting providers and services in at will, burning up efficiency like a supernova consumes flotsam before it becomes a black hole.

It is the invisible, heavy hand clutching fistfuls of healthcare dollars: selfish self-interest at work.

As patients, and I'd argue providers as well, MOST of the time we're each MOST interested in "this little light of mine," not the overall healthy functioning of the wider wellness universe.

And it is from this current, self-interested, fearful consumer-driven healthcare nucleosynthesis that new galaxies of disruptive innovation are being formed.


We're launching the burden of healthcare costs towards consumers already. Excuse the continuing space metaphor but I want to be sure this point is embedded.

So why aren't more companies offering innovative tech and customer service options to address increasing consumer involvement and the changing face of patient demand for performance improve
ment?

Answer: We're all still waiting with baited breath for the 'big numbers' and 'real success stories.' We won't believe it's time until we can track the shooting stars with the naked eye.

We want to see millions of consumers demanding better care and dozens of Health 2.0 firms merging, being acquired, or improving offerings to make their own 5 year anniversaries intact.

But if we hold our breath waiting for other organizations to be successful, we'll suffocate as they snap up market share. Successful innovations in consumer-directed healthcare will take a measured "just do it" approach, rather than a "wait and see who does it first and succeeds" mindset.

Also, innovative healthcare companies of the future will practice preemptive innovation, rather than waiting for the next supernova to take action.

Some firms are getting it right, no doubt about it, but the number of true success stories bringing in healthy revenues and planning for growth spurts is depressingly slim. Hopefully we'll see increasing evidence of new innovation galaxy formation at each successive Health 2.0 event.

Fellow blogger and Dutch consultant
Jacqueline Fackeldy may have the right of it when she suggests what we need isn't more consumer-directed tech; it's the injection of 'human-to-human' marketing and communications into the current stratified healthcare system.

Successful healthcare innovators will address 'supernova' consumers where they orbit.

She terms this vision "hotealthcare," and if you'd like to learn more about it, join us April 12th in Amsterdam.

I can't promise new worlds will be born at our meeting, but I can promise we'll bring combustible elements to the table. (We've got at least one professional sparring partner in attendance...)

6.3.08

Event Horizon: What's Next for Health 2.0

My review of Health 2.0 is a bit of classic Health Management Rx "glass half full, glass half empty."

Having just returned from two days of the whirlwind that was volunteering at the Health 2.0 Spring Fling, I can say the conference was a huge, energizing success, but also a bit like ripping off a Band-Aid a few days too early.

You know there's fresh, promising skin underneath, but it still hurts a bit more than expected if you just can't resist looking at the healing wound too soon.

Figuring out this new healthcare landscape is painful.

Navigating the offerings at H2.0 leaves a bit of a mark and a very slight bitter aftertaste of frustration. Very few firms demoing are viable or really attractive as-is - I was hoping to find more firms ready for the Band-Aid to come off NOW, useful to patients and doctors NOW, not months into future redesigns.

Like most meetings, you get a return that's reciprocal to the effort you put in. But I'm not sure anyone at H2.0 could say there wasn't an energy (albeit a rather unfocused buzz) in the rooms. Here's Dan Kogan's review on the Health 2.0 blog.

I met interesting people with excellent ideas and engaging personalities whom I knew only from blogging, including David Hamilton of VentureBeat and Scott Shreve of Crossover Health (read his March 5th entry for an excellent analysis of the emerging space).

The crowd was youngish, largely male (I'd say about 70% without exact figures), IT dominated, entreprenuerial, and embodied a 'seeking' mentality. Everyone was looking for their space and keeping an eye on developing firms. Some were seeking capital and a few had potential capital to burn.

You know it's a good conference when you have a hard time deciding to listen to the panelists, a VP of Business Development 'selling' why they're engaged in healthcare consumerism, or some very high-octane conversation debating merits of panel offerings at the table next-door.

Health 2.0 meetings are fascinating not because they single-handedly hash out a definition of where we're going in consumer-directed healthcare, but rather because they provide a spectrum of offerings that demonstrate how various entrepreneurs are trying to answer that question.

Their answers to this question help shape our views, and the industry. These are the first-movers, people. 2 or 3 will succeed. Many more will fail. But the failures teach us just as much about what is missing from the healthcare experience as the leading players, if not more.

Health 2.0 is a blast because even coffee chat reiterates businesspeople are passionate about bringing consumers of goods and services (both patients and providers) into the fold.

At an IDEO brainstorm event we all watched a video and then had to QUICKLY design a product or service to pitch to VCs addressing concerns and needs for people living with diabetes. Our group developed a buddy system (based on the sponsor model in AA) to connect newly diagnosed diabetics with 'experienced' and well-seasoned consumers. We called it, tongues-in-cheeks, The Sweet Life. I wish we had more opportunities for this type of on-the-fly innovation that rules out nothing outlandish, and I hope the IDEO participation is a fixture at each Health 2.0 event. The IDEO staff are just as interesting as their methodologies (how're the photos Webster? Can I get some copies?)

And of course, there's a lot of money to be made in becoming a defining H2.0 firm and being at the forefrunt of next-wave development. Entrepreneurs are no dummies; they are successful if/when they enter market spaces filled with potential for change, lots of payors, and weak traditional offerings.

What's the point of H2.0? Is it a movement? Is it well-defined? Is it shaping the industry?

Answers: Yes, no, and yes.

Subjectively, it's a movement allowing firms to coalesce around a need for consumer-directed goods and services, whether the consumers are patients or providers, or both.

Objectively, Health 2.0 as represented at the Spring Fling, is a healthcare industry category, for now largely IT based and entrepreneurial in spirit and size, that connects disparite segments of the hospital/healthcare market.

A very rough list of subsectors includes:

1. Search/seek/find services (find a doc, etc.)

2. Ratings (rate a doc, rate a hospital, etc.)

3. Back office for providers (helping docs take back healthcare mgmt, including online med reconciliation, e-health provision, emailing patients, etc.)

4. Consumer Buys (direct purchases for consumers of 'new' services such as $1.99 generic online chat with a doc)

5. Connectors (translating EHR/PHR data, connecting patients to docs who are in their HMO network, connecting people with newly diagnosed conditions to others who live with the illness, etc.)

Everyone I spoke to is not only actively engaged in 'changing healthcare' into a consumer/service based industry, they're putting their money (and management expertise) where their mouths are.

What's the point of going to future Health 2.0 events?

First, at Health 2.0 we'll see continuing clarification of the space - organizations will use lessons from the conference to differentiate and define subcategories.

Second, it makes business travel and industry learning exciting again. Don't underestimate the power of the status quo on limiting innovation.

Healthcare conferences can be a glut of traditional views, heirarchical assertions of what's working in the market, and talking heads who have burned out - they're no longer passionate about the enterprise or the possibility that their organization will play a role in changing offerings and improving care.

Most often, I learn more about what's working (and what's not) in the healthcare industry from reading the bloggers on my blogroll. Sad, but true. They're telling me, passionately, what's up to date. What's about to change. What their customers want. What they need to do business in the business of making us 'well.'

And perhaps that's the seminal realization of my time at Health 2.0, the lightbulb theorem.

In an admittedly self-selecting audience (all attendees and presenters actively believe consumers must be engaged and directing the forward momentum of healthcare), we all buy in to the idea that customers are the decision-makers (a central tenet in any other sector - I'm still not sure how we miss the boat so badly in healthcare), and will have increasingly vocal input as to how we should change healthcare.

Of course, if we really want the Health 2.0 debate to shape forthcoming wellness management offerings, we'll have to work much harder to get dissenters to attend and present.

We need some speakers present who believe consumer-directed healthcare is just crap. Let's electrify the debate a bit to accelerate development.

We also need more press, bloggers, editors, and authors who will be critical of the space and ask the tough questions (including "how on earth will that business model pay for itself?")

We're moving towards an idealistic, but also necessary, view of reframing healthcare offerings as wellness management, rather than merely disease treatment.

Of course our ills will still be encapsulated with goods and services, treated in an episodic fashion. Of course. But we'll also see an increasing numbers of providers (docs like Jay Parkinson and Enoch Choi) talking to us about how to focus on being WELL.

Here's an open question to Health 2.0 firms that should be at the heart of a root qualitative analysis: How do you help the system treat me as a person, rather than a pulse?

And of course, how will you monetize the data, format, and methodology that helps me navigate the system along my personal care continuum?

The most interesting firms at Health 2.0 provided ways for docs and consumers to communicate about how to live WELL.

The best firms, regrettably only a handful in my opinion, combined deep management benches with sound business models and also provided a real 'wow' moment when demoing services.

They include Myca, Phreesia, Vitals.com, American Well, Diabetes Mine (although technically a blog not a commercial H2.0 biz, Amy Tenderich's site represents the best of patient-centric, consumer-directed peer-peer info services and community), and a few others.

So here's what I think we'll see in the Health 2.0 sphere in the next 1-2 years (an eternity in any tech niche...):

1. Functional Gut Checks: Firms present at Health 2.0, Connecting Consumers and Providers, will be asking themselves tough questions in the coming weeks. Does my business model work? How will I be sustainable, or not? Do I want to be bought? Is my mgmt team strong enough to seek VC competitively? Does my offering encourage translation and transmission of data across formats and sources (i.e. does it encourage interoperbility?) Does my name, branding, image, and format work for the space and is it successful in attracting press, search results, buyers, etc.?

2. The M&A Wave: Several of the presenting firms (who demoed during H2.0 and then answered questions by a panel in what turned out to be an excellent format for rapid learning) provided similar offerings with a weak differentiating factor. And the presenting firms are the creme-de-la-creme of their segment. For each firm that presented, there are 5 to 50 more doing the same thing with less value who weren't invited to show their stuff onstage. This will result in mergers, acquisitions, and continuing buy outs by bigger, more traditional industry players trying to squeeze into the H2.0 space.

3. "Me Too" Development: Some of the firms at Health 2.0 were seriously checking out the competition. There will be a race to add functionalities so firms can compete (the "we do that too" mentality).

4. Paint a Pretty Picture: We'll also see design innovations as many of these firms move past beta - many sites were crowded, a few glutted with overly obvious advertisements that are turnoffs to savvy consumers. Some took a page from other industries we already trust for online commerce and designed their interfaces accordingly (to look like my online banking entry page, for example).

5. Job Hopping/Management Musical Chairs: The social aspects of Health 2.0 conference-going are valuable for both those examining employment in the space and those needing a fresh injection of engaged employees. Most of the startups are moving at a frenetic developmental pace. These execs will want to look to fellow attendees for potential hires. Here's a plug for my fellow volunteers, an impressive, international bunch with great attitudes and even greater skill sets. Many of us are in grad programs and volunteered our time for Matthew and Indu because our radar tells us "there's just something going on here." In addition, some execs are heading blah firms and some companies had green benches but great business models. I think we'll see some exec. switches in the coming months, or at the very least additions to advisory boards.

6. Shop Til We Drop: Consumers want into the space. Badly. We'll use online versions of word-of mouth referral (blogs, communities, social networks), print reviews (major news and online media), and search offerings/services provided by trusted firms and practitioners to access our health information and shape personal wellness goals.

To traditional healthcare providers using old-fashioned methods - you've underestimated us. Badly. 60% want online access to records and testing, according to this Deloitte survey (at EHR Decisions, the CCHIT blog). If we can't get them online, we'll demand access, as did Dorothy Tillman, who was arrested for not submitting her request in writing (read the unbelievable story on A Scanner Brightly, by Jaz-Michael King, here). Continue to do so at your peril - and ours.

It's no surprise that the realization of consumer-directed healthcare's growing importance was the big 'aha' moment at HIMSS 2008 (Thanks to John Sharp at eHealth for the post). I'm stunned more HIMSS attendees didn't pick up on Health 2.0 and attend the Spring Fling.

Bet I'll see many more of you in 6 mos. at the next Health 2.0 show in San Francisco.

Attendees were challenged to think of a 7 word description for the next generation of Health 2.0. Mine would be almost idiotically simplistic: Listen to my concerns. Help me live - WELL.