Adam Bosworth: How to Spend $50 Billion on Health IT

 




Adam Bosworth spoke at the TEPR Conference today about how President Obama can best spend the $50 billion that will be available when the stimulus package is signed. Mr. Bosworth, one of the founders of Google Health, left Google in 2007 to create his own health IT company, Keas. 

Even though he has a long history as a techie (he worked at Microsoft before Google), he believes money could be better spent, not on IT, but on providing incentives for patients and doctors to work together to create health plans for healthy lifestyles. He believes that the U.S. has become sicker over the last 20 years due to unhealthy lifestyles which contribute to skyrocketing rates of obesity and the long list of illnesses that go along with that. 

However, not surprisingly, my three favorite points of Mr. Bosworth's talk had to do with IT:

1.    Information Technology Saves Money 

In every industry that has adopted IT, most have realized cost savings by shifting business activities to the consumer.


For instance, banks save money when customers get money from an ATM instead of a bank teller. Airlines save money when travelers p
rint boarding passes at home instead of using a gate agent.

Physician practices can see the same benefits by enlisting patients to do some of the work now done by their overworked staff. Allow patients to register with your patient management system online and allow them to update it when their insurance or demographic information changes. In fact, studies show that patients would like to be more involved electronically. Read more about that in my post about what patients want.


 

2.  Do not spend government money on developing “standards”

Standards are not developed by government fiat, but by financial motivation. The best standards are easy; if standards are difficult to use then they will be harder to implement because fewer people will be able to implement them. For example, html was widely adopted as a standard because it is so easy that even non-programmers can use it. In healthcare, the CCR (Continuity of Care Record) is quite sufficient for interoperability, because it is so straightforward and easy.







3.  Doctors should not run IT departments

The only hardware a physician office needs is a monitor that can run a web browser. Systems that are accessed through the internet have a distinct advantage over those that are housed on-site in terms of back-up and new releases. One doctor at the conference related a story where his paperless office had a server crash and he was not able to recover any data for six weeks. Horror stories like this are far less likely to happen if you are using a browser based system.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

  • February 3, 2009 John Smith wrote:
    Point #3. Do you think it is smart to go with a solution that is remote hosted by a third party, so you are asset light and have a greater sense of ownership of the data? Or is it good enough to just go with an ASP solution offered by the provider. I guess one is perpetual license versus a subscription for the other, which is not really what I am getting at (although feel free to weigh in). What I am really curious about are your thoughts on how much ownership of the data a physician has when they use an ASP solution and how much is the physician giving up in simplicity when they choose a remote hosted solution instead?
    Reply to this
    1. February 4, 2009 Health IT Girl wrote:
      I think this depends on how the contract is written for using a hosted system.  The physician needs to ensure that the practice owns the data and the contract should state that clearly. Some systems offer the ability to download a copy of the data on your premises in case of disaster.  Some systems also provide remote data base backups. So, I guess the answer is, it depends
      Reply to this
  • February 7, 2009 Techno Doc wrote:
    Two issues with this post:

    1. The stimulus package only contains about $17 billion for HIT. The $50 billion figure was an Obama campaign promise. Of the $17 billion, very little is for direct funding of IT systems, the majority is for programs to improve quality, much of it through CMS.

    2. Some of the most brilliant HIT minds I've met and worked with are also physicians. It would be great if all of my apps could be web based, but most of what is available is not. Until the vendors make more solutions that are web native, we will have servers. This has nothing to do with doctors running IT, it is the reality of the market.

    Not an impressive display of knowledge by a so-called authority on the subject.
    Reply to this
  • March 16, 2009 KW Norris wrote:
    Thanks Techno Doc, I am interested in more information on the $50B vs $19B discussion. Your input was quite enlightening. Can you or another reader direct me to other discussions or sources that i can research? Thanks, kw
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.