Fard Johnmar of Envision Solutions has produced a new report designed to facilitate communication between health organizations and social networkers. We were fortunate to be among the Web sites profiled in the study and got a sneak peek at it last week. As always with Fard’s work, the report is thoughtful and well-documented.
In introducing the report, Fard [pictured] is also hosting a Webinar on January 29 at noon Central.
Learn more — and sign up! — here.
In our interview series leading up to the Health 2.0 conference in March, we’ve talked with Scott Shreeve of Crossover Health , Ed Silverman of Pharmalot, and Fard Johnmar of HealthcareVox. Today we share our interview with Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, a health economist and management consultant who founded the Think-Health consultancy in 1992. She is author of the Health Populi blog and a member of the Health 2.0 conference advisory board.
Q: In our interview with Scott Shreeve, he offered an expansive definition of Health 2.0. Matthew Holt’s definition has been narrower. What’s your definition of “Health 2.0″?
A: The phrase “Health 2.0″ has become somewhat loaded with marketing hype, even since the San Francisco conference. When it comes to defining the phrase, I’m a strict constructionist based on O’Reilly’s concept of Web 2.0. In that context, Health 2.0 is the application of Web 2.0 tools to health. In this case, “health” is broadly defined and includes but is not limited to health ‘care.’ Thus, Health 2.0 is the convergence of social media and health, enabling people (whether we call them patients, consumers, caregivers), providers (clinicians and institutions), payers (people, plans, sponsors such as employers, government agencies) and suppliers (pharma, med device cos., financial services cos., etc.) to work together. Health 2.0 enables transparency.
My take is thus more aligned with Matthew’s, although I am a fan of Scott’s vision of a new model for health, health care, and health financing. Scott’s definition is for a new-and-improved, even disruptive, health delivery, financing and consumption model.
Q: You have said that with Health 2.0, “consumers are turning the tables on old school health care, empowering themselves to bring greater balance to information asymmetry in health care.” Do you think most doctors, hospital systems, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies recognize that this is happening? How would you characterize their reaction to this consumer movement to this point?
A: Among the stakeholders you mention, health plans are ahead of the others. Look at The Health Care Scoop from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Anthem’s alliance with Zagat. They recognize that social media are part of the consumer environment, and if they want to migrate toward consumer-directed health care, they need to provide greater transparency, information and tools that are consumer-manageable and -generated. Hospitals will be next to fall in line. Physicians tend to be resistant to consumer reviews and given the operating environment they’re in, this reaction is understandable. Still, there will be early adopters who may already be emailing with patients and are on the consumer-facing curve earlier than other doctors.
Finally, Big Pharma has been resistant due to what the industry perceives as regulatory and legal constraints: for example, liability for reporting adverse events to the FDA. But although many people don’t know this, many consumer-facing pharma brands have been monitoring social media for over two years to learn what’s being said about them, and bringing the learnings “home.” More will engage the way BCBS of Minn. is doing; for example, GSK is learning from its alli.com website for weight control. That is an OTC brand, but lessons will be learned across the business on the pharma side.
Q: What are the most exciting examples of Health 2.0 companies that are currently online, and why?
A: This is so fluid, and each week I find a couple of new entrants that are intriguing. I’ve already mentioned the “Scoop” which I see as a very brave and encouraging development by a health plan. Of course, health care is local and Minnesota isn’t necessarily Louisiana or Texas. But the Blues like to learn from each other, so I’m encouraged by the model.
Q:. How do you believe Health 2.0 will ultimately impact current issues in healthcare, such as the large number of uninsured, the inefficiencies of the current system, and the high cost of care?
A: Health 2.0 first enables transparency: sharing of opinions, information. This can impact quality by driving out, in the long run, poor providers based on consumers’ experiences. Similarly it can inform providers in a qualitative way how to improve their services. Transparency can also have an impact on the cost of care where consumers can shop around for services. We’ve seen this happen already with the advent of retail health clinics, which clearly post prices on their wall before services are rendered, and with medical tourism.
Health 2.0 in and of itself will not directly address the issue of access and the uninsured — but indirectly social media can impact these issues. Influentials online do gain attention for key issues, and health care is currently front-of-mind among consumers in this political year. If you look at the December Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, the #1 and #2 issues on voters’ collective minds are Iraq and health care. The economy, which had been a lower #3 issue, is increasing in concern based on the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the price of gas at the pump, and the negative impact on the stock market and Wall Street overall. Influential health bloggers, for example, raise the issue of access, which is then picked up by the mass media.
Q: Fard Johnmar has argued that Health 2.0 can’t really qualify as a “movement” until the various Health 2.0 startups begin cooperating in some formal structure, such as an advocacy group. Do you agree?
A: I’ve used the words “movement” and “Health 2.0″ in the same sentence. Fard is right insofar as to be a movement, there must be a confluence of early adopters to emerge in the adopter phase of Health 2.0. I’m not so certain we need to see a formal structure; that might go against the spirit of social media. I’m more concerned with adoption than what words we use to describe the phenomenon. It is what it is.
Q: What aspects of the Health 2.0 movement will have the biggest impact on the pharmaceutical industry, and specifically, the prices paid by consumers?
A: Transparency — I’m a broken record, but that is my bias as a health economist. There’s no flowing market with the flow of information, and when it comes to pharma, we’ve had lots of obscurity and opaqueness. But you don’t need social media to enable this; you need price lists which could be available in a 1.0 world. You can already cost-compare drug prices on Costco.com, and of course, Wal-Mart and others offer $4 generic scripts. So Health 2.0 isn’t necessary to drive down drug prices. Aggregation of purchasers is.
Q: According to Ed Silverman, pharmaceutical companies say they can’t be more transparent (and thus fully take part in the Health 2.0 movement) because of “regulatory oversight, trade secrets and fear of litigation.” Do you think these barriers to transparency are real? If so, how do you think the pharmaceutical industry might be able to overcome them in order to communicate more openly with consumers?
A: The pharma companies say this and live in a litigious environment. In all of the layoffs occurring in Big Pharma right now, there is still a full-employment act for lawyers and outside legal counsel. But as I’ve said, brand managers are tip-toeing into the world of social media and doing small experiments. This is the culture of pharma — it’s conservative, but teachable. And a new generation of leadership is about to supplant the Old School pharma executives at the C-level, and they are Blackberry-carrying, web-surfing people. So while pharma may be a late entrant, they can be fast followers.
So far in our interview series leading up to the March Health 2.0 conference, we have talked with Scott Shreeve of Crossover Health and Ed Silverman of Pharmalot. Today we share our discussion with Fard Johnmar, founder of Envision Solutions and author of HealthcareVox.
Q: When you write about the Health 2.0 movement, you tend to put “movement” in quotation marks — as if Health 2.0 WANTS to be a movement, but really isn’t one yet. Why not?
A: Let me clarify my intent. First, the term “Health 2.0″ is one that has generated come controversy, mainly because some wonder what “Health 1.0″ is and whether appending “2.0″ to health has any significance. I’ve spoken with Matthew Holt about this. Based on our conversations, I think he uses the term Health 2.0 as a type of shorthand observers can use to illustrate how technology is playing a greater role in health.
In my mind, a movement is a grassroots effort being driven by a group of people seeking to change an entrenched system from without. In a few respects, the Health 2.0 community certainly qualifies. Some entrepreneurs in this space are hoping that technology can solve the many problems health systems around the world face. And, they are actively working toward this goal. However, others, for various financial and personal interests, are less interested in this agenda. This is part of the reason that I put the word “movement” in quotation marks, because it does not yet qualify. However, I would also note that I’m not sure people in the Health 2.0 community want to change it into a movement. Rather, they are interested in finding ways to leverage new technologies to meet their various objectives.
Q: You argue that Health 2.0 companies are too fragmented to have a policy impact, and that they need to begin working together. How might this cooperation take form, and what do you think it can realistically achieve? (Can you provide a couple of specific examples?)
A: I’m not the only one who has suggested that the players in the Health 2.0 world come together around a common purpose. I’ve mentioned the ideas of Marty Tenenbaum, creator of CommerceNet previously. He has suggested that businesses in the Health 2.0 space come together to form a network that would have the intellectual, human and financial power to generate real change in the U.S. healthcare system. Now, there are certain problems that are best left to policymakers, such as improving access to quality care. However, there are a host of other issues, including increasing the public’s ability to understand (and influence) healthcare costs, that Health 2.0 advocates could come together around.
The health industry is filled with examples of coalitions and public-private partnerships that have achieved great good. We don’t have the time to go into many of them here. But, what I would say is that the best partnerships are organized to achieve specific, tangible goals. I think the first step would be for the folks who are driving Health 2.0 to decide what it is they want to change. Once that happens, the rest is simply strategy and tactics.
Q: Even if Health 2.0 entrepreneurs come together to form a network or advocacy group, isn’t the likelihood that the promising startups will just get bought up by large healthcare companies anyway? Would such acquisitions hurt or help the “movement” as it’s currently envisioned?
A: I think the goal of many startups is to be bought out by large companies (inside and outside of the health industry). However, if Health 2.0′s proponents decide to achieve universal objectives, personnel/businesses may shift, but others will take up the charge.
Q: What are the four or five most exciting examples of Health 2.0 companies or Web sites that are currently online, and why?
A: Well, I’ve talked quite a bit over the past few years about companies I think are doing exciting and interesting work. This may continue. However, recently I’ve been focusing on some overall issues that are important in health, that go way beyond individual firms — although some have greater or lesser influence on them. They are:
- Patient privacy
- Healthcare information control
- Health behavior change
Based on my reading of articles, blog posts and other media over the past year, I think there is a conflict brewing between established health companies, Internet startups, government agencies and managed care organizations around who will be able to effectively address each of these issues and how they will do it. For example, one important question is who can we trust to protect our privacy? This is critical because new companies (especially in the area of genetics) are starting to gather data about individuals in unprecedented ways. What are their responsibilities?
I’m starting to look at companies within this context. Firms that are operating at a high level (no matter their size or niche) that appear to have the most influence in these domains are the ones poised to make the most impact on the health industry. I’ll be focusing on this topic a great deal on my blog HealthcareVox this year.
Q: How do you believe Health 2.0 will ultimately impact the current hot-button issues in healthcare — the large number of uninsured, the inefficiencies of the current system, and the high cost of care?
A: I’m not sure if Health 2.0 can impact access issues because that is something policymakers will have the most influence over. However, I do believe that technology can reduce inefficiencies and help consumers and others exert pressure on prices. This is because as pricing information becomes more widely available (and understandable), people (who will likely be asked to manage their own healthcare dollars) will gravitate toward the providers and services that provide the most benefit. This will take years, perhaps decades, but Health 2.0 technologies can certainly influence this process.
Q: What aspects of the Health 2.0 movement will have the biggest impact on the pharmaceutical industry, and on drug consumers? Can the Health 2.0 movement help bring down prescription drug prices for U.S. consumers?
A: Overall, prescription drug prices are out of the control of the individual consumer. The US regulatory/legislative structure has more influence on drug prices than technology and consumers ever will. In addition, with the flood of generic medications that will hit the market in a few years, drug prices have no where to go but down.
That being said, we are slowly moving to a system where drug companies are being asked to illustrate the benefit of their products in more profound ways. Technology will provide third party payers and consumers with detailed knowledge about the effectiveness of prescription drugs. I firmly believe that social media will help drive this trend because it will provide us — almost in real time — with information about drug side effects and real-world efficacy that is hard to get today. As more information becomes available, certain drugs will win while others will lose. I can’t predict how this will influence drug prices, but I’m sure it will have some impact.
Q: According to Ed Silverman at Pharmalot, pharmaceutical companies say they can’t be more transparent (and thus fully take part in the Health 2.0 movement) because of “regulatory oversight, trade secrets and fear of litigation.” Do you think these barriers to transparency are real? If so, how do you think the pharmaceutical industry might be able to overcome them in order to communicate more openly with consumers?
A: I certainly believe that the issues Ed mentions are very, very real. In many cases, it is much safer (and prudent) for organizations to remain silent about certain issues because of legal, ethical and regulatory concerns. However, there are a host of issues pharmaceutical companies can address that are pretty safe — especially at the corporate level. Given that the industry’s reputation is still poor (although some industry-backed surveys indicate it is improving) drug firms need to do a lot more to communicate about how and why they make decisions and be much more proactive and candid when communicating with the public. Social media can help.
I’m not quite sure what to make of ScribeMedia yet, but they produce some interesting videos, and Fard Johnmar is part of it, so that speaks well of it.
Here’s a new one on the history of medicine — check it out.
They also do a regular Pharma Report. We’re still waiting to be interviewed by Pharma Girl.
It’s time for the second-annual healthcare blogosphere survey by Fard Johnmar and colleagues. Here are the details, from the news release:
—
Envision Solutions, LLC and Trusted.MD Network Launch Second Comprehensive Study of Global Healthcare Blogging Community
The “Taking the Pulse of the Healthcare Blogosphere” survey tracks the demographics and opinions of healthcare bloggers from around the world.
New York, NY (August 27, 2007) Today, Envision Solutions, LLC (www.envisionsolutionsnow.com) and Trusted.MD Network (http://trusted.md) launched the second edition of the “Taking the Pulse of the Healthcare Blogosphere” survey. This annual poll gathers comprehensive opinion and demographic data from the global community of healthcare bloggers.
The 2007 edition of the survey will run from August 27 to October 15. It is open to individuals and organizations that devote at least 30% of their blogging time to healthcare-related topics. To learn more about the poll, please go to: http://www.envisionsolutionsnow.com/survey2.html.
“Since our inaugural 2006 survey, the healthcare blogosphere has grown in size, influence and recognition,” said Fard Johnmar, founder of Envision Solutions, and Dmitriy Kruglyak, CEO of Trusted.MD Network. “We are pleased to kick off the second edition of this survey, which will provide the public with additional insights about this diverse and vibrant component of the global blogging community.”
Envision Solutions and Trusted.MD Network expect to release the results of this survey in the Winter of 2007.
About Envision Solutions, LLC
Envision Solutions, LLC is a full-service healthcare marketing communications consulting firm. The company provides innovative products and services to not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Envision Solutions’ core competencies are in the areas of analysis, strategic and tactical recommendation development, training and content development. Please visit www.envisionsolutionsnow.com for more information about the firm.
About Trusted.MD Network
Trusted.MD Network (http://trusted.md) is a social networking service designed to empower trust-based relationships between healthcare consumers, professionals and organizations. Free membership offers individuals personal publishing, search, communication and reputation management tools. Healthcare organizations can sponsor private spaces around common interests and affiliations to engage and recruit their membership. Trusted.MD Network is also the world’s largest community of health & medical bloggers. Register for a free membership today.
—
We encourage all health and medical bloggers to participate!
Subscribe in a reader