Your PR Agency is Probably Robbing You

In addition to running a health IT company, I also write for a few media publications. I decided to attend the mHealth summit this year as a member of the press. This is was my first time to attend a major health IT conference as a member of the press. I thought it would be fun to comment on my experiences looking at the vendor - PR - media triangle from both sides of the fence.

PR agencies exist for a single reason: to manage and maximize the relationships between their clients and the media. One of the many responsibilities of PR agencies is thus to know members of the media, what they write about, what their interests are, and their views and opinions so that PR agencies can make appropriate and relevant introductions between the media and vendors. It would be rather difficult to effectively manage relationships with media outlets or journalists without having some sense of who writers are or what they write about.

Before the mHealth Summit, I was already skeptical of most PR agencies. After getting a flood of inbound emails and inappropriate phone calls over the last few weeks, I'm more skeptical than ever. PR agencies are overwhelmingly lazy and incompetent. There are exceptions but most are downright awful. Allow me to elaborate:

On November 20th the mHealth Summit released the full list of registered media and analyst attendees to the exhibiting vendors. There were a total of 81 media attendees representing 68 media organizations. The mHealth Summit rightfully does this to help vendors maximize their dollars spent at the conference and to help media learn about companies that are doing interest work and that warrant media attention. This practice theoretically creates mutual value for both parties.

Since November 20th, I've received fifteen direct emails from PR agencies trying to schedule a meeting at the mHealth Summit. I've also received four unwarranted phone calls. This process is broken:

1) Not a single PR agency sent me a personalized message. Not one. I was mail-merged or copy-pasted by every single PR agency. This is an utterly pathetic business practice. Why should a PR agency be paid so they can mail-merge? This is particularly irksome since I take pride in writing meaningful analysis of the industry from the perspective of a passionate technologist and as CEO of a company in the health IT space. I don't cover companies for the sake of covering companies. I don't write top 10 lists. I don't "look" for stories. I write interesting and meaningful analyses. Every post has a thesis. I have no quota, no minimums, or maximums. I write out of passion. Anyone who's read three of my blog posts would know that.

2) Some of the messages were written in the format: "Who: [CEO / SVP of X]  Where: Booth #Y What: Next generation of awesome Z." This is total shit. Just absolutely awful. If I was a sheep in search of stories, perhaps I might have appreciated this, but I am not. I am a person looking for engaging vendor executives who can intelligently discuss their products and market opportunity.

3) Every single message I received was written so that I could copy-paste it into a blog post. The PR agencies assumed I am brain dead and incapable of writing on my own, so they tried to do it for me. I know this is common practice in the PR industry, but that doesn't mean it's not insulting.

4) Most of the PR agencies had no idea what their clients actually do. Of the four that called me without warrant, not a single one could concisely describe what their client's product does in two sentences. They could read a listing of benefits such as "decrease complications in the ICU to reduce admissions" but none of them could actually tell me what the product does. I decided to take advantage of their naivete and press them for details. All four PR agents continued to re-iterate "improving healthcare" and "doing good for the world." These assertions imply a fundamental inability to think: I live and breathe healthcare and health IT. How can a health IT company produce a product or service that doesn't isn't good for patients and the world? If they wanted to get my attention, the PR agents should have told me that their clients' products are strictly a cost center with few proven benefits that succeed in the market because they have strong expertise in sales and marketing. At least that would have caught my attention.

Why Pristine?

This blog post aims to answer the most existential questions that comprise the foundation of our business.

Why does Pristine exist?

Why do we get up and bust our asses every day?

Why should prospective stakeholders - employees, clients, investors, and partners - join in our insanity?

Pristine lives at the bleeding edge of technology and its intersection with forward thinking healthcare. We always will. We are an engineering driven company that makes the impossible possible. We deeply believe that technology breaks assumptions, and that the world can be rebundled and reorganized more efficiently by utilizing the latest technologies.

Many companies claim to be driven by an intrinsic desire to do good for the world. As a company that strives to improve healthcare delivery, it's pretty easy for us to make that claim; we care about creating real value for the world. However, that's a generic and cliche answer. This answer fails to capture our deeper motivations and beliefs.

We target healthcare because we have deep insight and understanding of modern healthcare delivery. As engineers, we seek inefficiencies. We see opportunities. And we capitalize. We are motivated, driven machines. Put more simply, we target healthcare because we understand the challenges of healthcare delivery better than most. We live and breathe healthcare. We actively invest copious amounts of time and energy in understanding every aspect of the healthcare delivery and technology ecosystems that we bridge.

We are not afraid to express our opinions. We have been and will continue to be wrong across many fronts. We may be wrong in 90% of what we do and say and that's ok. We learn every step of the way. We pioneer new technologies and markets by outlearning the competition. Inevitably, we'll compete with others that have more resources, more funding, better sales and marketing machines, and a more established brand. Despite these disadvantages, we will deliver the best solutions in our markets because we employ the most passionate individuals with the best insights into our markets and where they're going. We will succeed because we will outcompete the competition.

We look both internally and externally to learn. We aim to learn from the best companies in healthcare, health IT, and technology. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are only a handful of world class companies and we hope to one day join their ranks.

World class companies are not massages, free food, fancy desks, big offices, 1st class plane tickets, or 5 star hotels. World class companies are comprised of exceptionally talented teams that outperform the competition.

World class companies invest in exceptionalism. They ensure that employees have a global sense of context, a solid understanding of the business and its objectives, and enable them to thrive in the face of adversity and distractions.

We get up every morning in pursuit of awesome. We do not accept mediocrity. We strive for excellence. We hope to one day be a world class company. We're not there yet, but we continue to persevere.

The Great Re-Bundling of Healthcare, Part 2

This post was originally featured on HIStalk.

This is part 2 in a series of posts of how computers are rebuilding healthcare. Check out part 1.

Medicine is organized into disciplines. Many of these disciplines have been around for decades. The medical disciplines appear to make sense in terms of both provider training and patient service. See a cardiologist for heart problems. See a dermatologist for skin problems. See an ophthalmologist for eye problems. See an ENT for ear problems. Each of these disciplines requires years of specialized training, so matching up patients accordingly makes sense.

This model of discipline based care delivery is (partially) broken.

Technology has changed society. As we’ve gotten lazier and fatter, chronic care conditions have come to account for x% of total care costs. Of those, some of the most common and discussed chronic conditions are:

Diabetes 
Asthma 
CHF 
COPD

Depending on the patient’s location and preferences, they may see a PCP and a few specialists to manage these conditions. But these PCPs and specialists are also diagnosing and treating dozens of other ailments.

Computers are eating in the world and re-bundling healthcare. Among other things, computers enable providers to seamlessly and instantly communicate.

Instead of training PCPs for seven years to try to support and manage most chronic conditions, why not train mid-level providers to specialize in a single condition and its variations? These mid-level providers could likely be trained in 1-2 years as opposed to seven+ for MDs.

By specializing in a single condition, they can become experts in that condition and provide the best care to patients more cost effectively. There would likely be a healthy dose of self-selection, in which many of these condition-specific providers would have the condition which they help others manage. These condition-specific providers would be particularly adept at empathizing with patients and helping provide guidance and education regarding every of managing life with a chronic condition.

How does technology fit into this? Why would this model work? The proposed model supposes a re-bundled, hyper fragmented care delivery system. Technology will be the connective glue that supports a hyper fragmented care delivery system:

Passive monitoring. Glucose monitors passively feed data to the cloud. So do Jawbones,FitBitsBasis Watches, and a host of other devices that are making their way to the market.AliveCor’s smartphone ECG empowers patients to take a daily ECG. As patients have adopted these devices, critics have argued that PCPs can’t possibly make sense of 25 different passively collected data sets that patients bring to PCPs. PCPs simply don’t have the time or expertise with each data set. They’re right. By narrowing focus, condition-specific mid level providers can work with their patients to passively collect, analyze, and act on the right data together.Qualcomm LifeVerizonAT&T and a host of companies from the recent mHealth Summit are creating the infrastructure to support this future.

Telemedicine. Coupled with passive monitoring, the vast majority of diabetes and asthma management can be delivered virtually. Diabetic specialists should be able to manage a larger diabetic population than a PCP trying to manage that same population in their office. Given the dynamic and variable nature of diabetic visits, a virtual waiting room makes a lot more sense than a physical one. Vheda Healthcare is acting on that vision.

Empathy. I find quite difficult to make the case that providers with the chronic condition that they help others manage won’t be more effective providers than providers that don’t have that chronic condition. See the rise of female OB-GYNs as a harbinger.

Questions and criticisms welcome.

More, More, More - Make More Stuff

This post was originally featured on HIStalk.

There are three ways businesses solve problems:

  1. Make more stuff / provide more services.
  2. Optimize existing stuff / services to be used more effectively.
  3. Redefine the problem and solve it in a different way.

To provide context, let’s look at a few examples in healthcare.

Make more stuff: the city of Austin is growing rapidly, so HCA decides to build a new hospital to support a growing patient population.

Optimize existing stuff: most doctors have open schedules that are costing them hundreds of dollars per month. ZocDoc builds a search engine to help doctors fill empty times and patients to get appointments more quickly.

Redefine solution: why pay a doctor to take your blood pressure and look at a rash when a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner can perform the same job at a lower price point just as effectively?

Most of healthcare delivery has traditionally been defined by solution #1, the making of more stuff / providing of more services: ICUs, robots, oncology centers, and a plethora of medical disciplines and subspecialties. After adhering to this philosophy for the better part of 40-50 years, healthcare now accounts for 17 percent of the nation’s GDP.

The ACA and HITECH are attempting to shift focus to solutions #2 and #3 to drive quality, cost, and access:

Telemedicine falls at a cross section of solution types #2 and #3 and that’s exactly why it’s so profound. Telemedicine will help match the right doctors to the right patients across geographies (#2) and perform medical care with virtually no administrative or retail overhead (#3). In an ideal world, let’s say healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP are directly proportional to the percentage of waking time the average person spends actively fostering their own health. Let’s optimistically call that 5 percent. To reduce healthcare costs from 17 percent of the nation’s GDP to 5 percent, telemedicine will have to be the standard, not the exception.

Health insurance exchanges (HIX), the individual mandate, and pre-existing conditions . The simplest solution to solve the access problem is to litter the country with even more providers (#1). This solves the access problem across two dimensions: (a) distance / physical accessibility and, (b ) cost by increasing competition (assuming healthcare works per traditional supply-and-demand economics). However, the ACA has instead opted to promote HIXs. The logic behind mandating health insurance, building health information exchanges, and asking payers to price high-risk patients has been to encourage low-income and uninsured patients to engage in proactive care as opposed to reactionary care (#3). Because of the way payers have reacted to these three changes, the ACA has unfortunately created the side effect of increased premiums and loss of old plans and providers for many patients. It’s still too early to know if these sacrifices are (rightfully) justified.

ACOs and bundled payments. Providers know the average cost of care per patient per year within a given geographic area based on health statistics of the population (BMI, percent smoking, percent with diabetes, etc.) Thus providers should manage a fixed revenue stream to care for their known patient population. This stands in stark contrast (#3) to the traditional FFS model – do more, bill more. To manage costs, ACOs are driving care from higher-acuity environments to lower-acuity environments (#2). Furthermore, many of the HITECH and Meaningful Use measures, particularly those centered around patient engagement, are providing financial incentives to providers to figure out how to deliver care more cost effectively (#3). Unfortunately, ACOs tend towards geographic monopolies, which have in many cases created significantly more cost than savings.

The ACA rightfully receives a lot of criticism. It has created problems. But despite these shortcomings, I believe in the future of the ACA because it’s trying fundamentally different solutions. The traditional free market of healthcare hasn’t worked. We should try novel approaches that theoretically can curb costs and create value.

Interview: Steve Cashman, Founder, CEO, HealthSpot

This interview was originally aired on HIStalk.

Tell me a bit about yourself and HealthSpot.

We’ve been seeing trends with the Affordable Care Act and all the newly insured people that will be coming into the healthcare landscape leading to physician shortages. I’m a tech guy from other industries, but what I know about is using technology to solve problems. 

When you sit down and you look at healthcare, you can see the rate of urgent care growing with many new high-cost scenarios. Telemedicine is going to help us bring better continuity of care along with more flexibility for physicians.

I started researching telemedicine and came across a lot of companies that raised money to do online care, such as American Well — these companies that for the last five to seven years had been hyping Skype-like telemedicine visits. It puzzled me why there wasn’t adoption of that type of technology from payers, from doctors, and from consumers. I started looking for the answers to that question.

When you go to the doctor and you talk to him about different online healthcare options, they’d say, well, that’s great, we can see each other, but I can’t do a lot for you via video. The doctor needs your blood pressure; wants to look in your ear, nose and throat. I started thinking about how do you make telemedicine practical to a doctor?

A doctor should think of telemedicine as a tool, just like he thinks of a stethoscope or any other piece of equipment that they use. It’s a tool that can be used to get the job done. Intrinsically I felt like any MBA student – frankly, any high school math student — could go through and show you the efficiency that could come with telemedicine. One doctor’s reach can extend to a lot of places. You really have to focus on how you get people to use telemedicine as a tool to make their job better.

With HealthSpot, I started working with doctors and trying to find out what remote services meant for them in terms of saving money. For example, I asked them about upper respiratory and ear infections and all these other kinds of illnesses that are being sent to urgent cares. What do you need? What type of technology do you need and how would you like it to work?

From that research we created the HealthSpot kiosk or the HealthSpot station. The medical equipment needed to do a remote visit is still quite expensive and it needs to be hooked up through an FDA medical device status system. The doctor on the other end needs to know he or she is really getting your blood pressure, your vitals, and your pulse-ox. We created HealthSpot as a tool for doctors to say, hey, I can sit right here where I am today, but I can bring my capability to a lot of places.

Our vision is to create a very high quality, very rich environment while using the same tools a doctor uses today, but empowering them through IT technology. We built HealthSpot for providers to have a new tool in their arsenal and it’s gone very well. We’ve got a lot of health systems using it.

The other piece we looked at for research was to start focus groups in healthcare, which is what you do a lot in the consumer businesses that I come from in the AV market. You look at the consumer’s experience when they take a new iPad out of the box or buy a new Samsung Galaxy or they go to the Verizon store and walk out with their phone. It’s all about that experience. That’s what we’ve tried to wrap up for HealthSpot – the best consumer experience possible.

But you also have to make it applicable. When you start looking at the misuse of urgent care or emergency departments, when you start looking at readmissions, specialist follow-ups, bundled payment and accountable care and all these things, you can take HealthSpot and apply it to most of those things. It’s an incredible tool for doctors and solves a business problem for these large health systems and other groups, including payers. That’s basically what we do.

 

What are you seeing in terms of adoption?

Over the last 12 months, we’ve been live with about a half dozen health systems across the country. Most of them have two to three units out there that they’re using, first to get standard protocols, operations, and stuff going.

Depending on how the HealthSpot station is being used, it affects what the daily utilization rate is. Some of these health systems are using them in their urgent cares for overflows when they get backed up. We have seen as many as three to four patients in an hour, meaning that you could see 30-40 people a day if you had it opened all day with that type of foot traffic. Most of the time, we’re seeing six to 10 people a day, but we’re only being used in a lot of peak hour situations.

We’ve recently contracted over a few hundred units to be deployed in 2014 in retail pharmacies and some other venues. That’s when we’re going to see a real, true implementation of what we envisioned for HealthSpot. That is when it will no longer be used as a stopgap, but as a platform instead. That’s when we’ll see the ultimate efficiency.

We have about a dozen out there. We’ve got orders for a few hundred. We’ve got about 10 to 20 health systems in the pipeline. We’ve got top retailers ready to roll them out.

When you think about utilization and when you look at urgent care and you add up all the overhead of the doctors, nurses, and facility, you need about 26 appointments a day to break even, even with the inflated rates you get in urgent care for billing. When you look at HealthSpot, if you put one in a retail pharmacy or an employer’s site, you get that overhead shrunk down to just our kiosk and a medical attendant there. You then only need about six appointments a day. You go from a 26 a day appointment overhead to a six a day overhead. You’re also allowing a doctor to be seen across 10 locations, for example, versus 10 doctors in 10 locations in other healthcare settings. You get a lot of operational efficiency with HealthSpot.

 

Are you placing HealthSpot kiosks in malls and like other high foot traffic retail environments or are you focused on providers, pharmacies, and medical environments?

The original vision was to replace Minute Clinics, Take Care clinics, etc. Retail clinics have failed. Between Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Target, you name it, those guys have spent about three to four billion dollars on their retail clinics today. They have only 1,600 out there out of 16,000 pharmacies in America. Every one of them loses money operating those. None of them are getting the heavy foot traffic they need to counter that overhead.

They’re disconnected from healthcare. If you walked into a CVS or Walgreens today and said, hey, I want to see a doctor from Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic or Hopkins and a specialist follow-up or a dermatology appointment or behavioral health, they can’t offer any of what a telemedicine visit could, where you’re seeing a high-quality doctor. With retailers, you’re seeing the person they have employed there. Our vision is that we absolutely go after the retail model and we’ve contracted a large number of retail units for 2014. Where we wanted to start with was going after the health system and making sure that doctors see HealthSpot as a tool. We want this to enable. 

Imagine walking into any pharmacy in town and being able to see one of their doctors there. They can treat you at a fraction of the overhead, 60 percent less overhead than they could at urgent cares, for example. You get that type of convenience with that type of formula. If you need a referral to go in, you’ve got that copy of your care from HealthSpot and the records are all bound up. Being in a pharmacy also makes a lot of sense. College campuses and all of those venues are where we’re focusing on.

But once again, what health systems like to do is bring a HealthSpot station internally. They like to put in urgent care in an emergency department where it solves an immediate problem. They like to get their doctors acclimated to using it. Think about where the ATM machine started. Think about where we would be in online banking today if the ATM machine hadn’t happened. Fifteen years ago, you were in an environment where you always used a clerk to get money or to get anything. And then it wasn’t.

It’s how you get consumers to adopt it. They weren’t just conveniently going to go on some random website to try things. They tried an ATM, they got their statement a month later, it showed they took 40 bucks out, and they trusted it. It was the first time they used something besides a person to get access to finances. Our HealthSpot kiosks represent the same thing. It’s a semi-manned model and it’s trusted, so the next step is rolling out these retailers. We want to create access to low cost, high quality access to care.

 

Can you provide more details on the cost differences between a HealthSpot station and retail clinic inside of a CVS?

When the average retail clinic builds out a store, they take 350 square feet. HealthSpot takes 40 square feet. That’s a lot of cost overhead. So 350 square foot versus 40. Then you look at the cost of that. On average, retailers spend $250,000 to build it out and get permits and all that.

In our units, there is a $15,000 implementation fee to install. Then you look at the ongoing overhead. With two nurse practitioners to be open seven days a week, eight hours a day, they owe about $400,000 of office overhead and payroll and everything to run that. We need a medical attendant at about $30,000 to $40,000 a year. So $400,000 versus $40,000 a year in overhead. Then you go on to the scopes and then you get your next problem.

Those are the real facts on the overhead, so it’s a dramatic cost difference. The second problem is a marketing awareness problem. It also deals with who the doctor is. If you look at CVS or Walgreens, they have about 2,000 nurse practitioners on payroll. None of those have any established businesses or credibility.

 

So the retail clinics are investing in marketing.

They’ve got to market that solution out to the general public. But what we do is, we would partner with Tenet in Dallas, for example. They’ve got millions of customers around Dallas that are coming to their urgent cares and coming to their family practice doctors. All of the sudden you have a marketplace for this service. HealthSpot brings foot traffic through that marketing exercise and adds the credibility.

What happened when Minute Clinic opened is they said, hey, we’ve got a nurse practitioner in there. Every doctor in town thought that was competing with them. When a consumer would say, should I go there if you’re closed on Saturdays or you’re busy that day? The doctor’s going to say, “Oh, I don’t know if they’re any good. I don’t know what their standards of practice are.” That created a lot of credibility issues with them.

The marketing issue comes down to a lot of brand presence. When you understand consumer marketing, you see there’s a lot brand value. When a person in Ohio sees that a HealthSpot station is run by Cleveland Clinic, it’s a form of brand validation. It’s the same reason a lot of employers are run by health systems. They’re outside clinics. They know it’s a quality experience that’s there. There’s a lot of market triage capability.

 

Let’s say you drop a HealthSpot kiosk at a mall and promote seeing a Mayo Clinic doctor. How do you deal with the EHR challenges?

We’re PHR, patient health record. We actually maintain a copy of the record for the consumer. They can exchange that with the doctor they see via CCD.

The nice thing is, unlike urgent care or whichever doctor you pick to see that’s licensed locally, you don’t have to fill out all the medical history forms. You don’t have to do that because we’ve got that in the PHR and we extend that with the doctor you choose. He can get right into seeing you and then you get your record out afterwards.

 

One of my favorite healthcare business quotes is “hospitals are cost structures in search of revenue streams.” HealthSpot is attempting to disrupt a large cost structure system. How does that fit with devices like the Scanadu tricorder?

Our vision long-term is to be in your living room, just like we are today on Skype. The way I do it differently is I’ve taken a look at how the consumers adopt stuff. When you look at the market segment, there’s a ton of people, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, everything under the Affordable Care Act. Those people can’t afford a $30 co-pay and skip appointments. The tricorder’s great, but at the end of the day, you don’t offer medical advice. You’ve also got to work it with the Medicaid and with the medical laws, whether it’s considered a side of care for reimbursement.

We are pushing the envelope in getting medical boards to allow you to get care with a nurse on the other end via telemedicine in more than 50 percent of the states. You have to be able to convince those medical boards that the living room with a tricorder is going to beat the standards of care that they have when I’ve got $10,000 worth of medical equipment that’s FDA approved in a kiosk, and they still aren’t comfortable with it.

This isn’t about whether we can make a DVD player for $35 and rent movies for a buck at Redbox. This is how do we move an industry that has a regulatory reimbursement consumer physician adoption model that today, I could have $10,000 worth of healthcare and telemedicine gear hooked up over an FDA gateway and I can still go into many states and they say, no, that doesn’t meet our medical board requirements. 

That’s great that you can create a tricorder. I can take the $30 camera off this TV and bundle it up into an otoscope and slip it somewhere in a lot of the cases that are on cell phones. It doesn’t meet the needs of the medical boards, the regulatory boards, consumer and physician adoption. And so why Chase Bank, the first people that adopted online care, were the people that used the ATM especially frequently to deposit cash checks and stuff.

We’re going to build a brand for our kiosk via HealthSpot. We’re going to build consumer trust and physician trust. When the adoption term starts to swing with the medical board for regulatory for reimbursement towards a living room, I’ve already got a doctor not working across the country for your next offers. I’ve already got consumers that trust when I go to a HealthSpot that works. The technology’s good. I get a quality doctor. I start to move across that.

It’s the hype cycle of adoption that you see. Why did the first MP3 players take off versus the Apple iPod? You could have done MP3s for eight years. And then Steve Jobs came out, brought it all together in a nice package. The music industry finally adopted it with digital rights management, so that it was legal versus illegal with Napster for music. There wasn’t a tech problem. It was a business, regulatory, and consumer adoption problem. That’s the same thing we’re dealing with with healthcare. That’s why I would say their hands are tied.