I managed to catch most of the final live webcast which was titled “mHealth Debate: Digital Efficiency and Extension or Disruptive Transformation?” with the underlying question of “Does mHealth Extend or Disrupt Existing Healthcare Systems?” (mHealth stqnds for mobile health). It was a great talk that highlighted a lot of issues related to this question (to which the answer was ultimately, it depends) and broader issues related to mHealth, what it is, its potential, and what is currently limiting its adoption. Two factors that panelists addressed as hindering greater implementation of mHealth are current reimbursement procedures and regulation by the FDA and FCC. As we’ve been talking about patient-centered care and financing this was especially salient to me. Currently fee for service reimbursement does not provide for mobile health or telemedicine services, however a transition to bundling will more adequately incentivize these types of services.
Another theme of the talk the terminology surrounding mHealth and it was referred to as telemedicine, mobile health, ubiquitous health, and a number of others names. The final weigh-in by one of the panelists was that eventually it will become so pervasive and commonplace that there will be no distinction and it will just be called “health care” which I thought was particularly striking. This conversation, in conjunction with the talk we heard by Dr. Parkinson highlights the fact that not only is new technology advancing in ways that can uniquely improve and change health care, but also that new doctors are likely to implement and insist upon using these technologies. Coming generations of doctors will have been surrounded by technology in every other aspect of their lives and to forego it in their workplace will simply be an unacceptable course. It wasn’t mentioned in the talk that I heard, but I think this will likely be a driving force in a field that is otherwise often slow to adopt substantial changes.
Great summary Chelsea! There does seem to be a great deal of promise in this emerging form of medicine, and in fact, the school I used to work at made frequent use of telemedicine for its students. Many of kids there came from families who lacked the means to take off of work and bring their child into a doctor’s office for a routine check-up, and this system provided a great substitute for that traditional form of health care. However, this form of mobile health does seem starkly different to me from the Hello Health service that Dr. Parkinson promoted. While watching that presentation, I couldn’t help but marvel at the sales pitch we were getting. I wanted to sign up for the program at that very instant, but then I remembered we already have free health insurance through the University. It did sound wonderful, though. Nevertheless, underneath that rapid fire PowerPoint presentation was a fairly simple concierge form of health care primarily targeted at people who can afford to pay out of pocket for all their primary care needs. Also, it probably comes with a really cool iphone app.
Despite mobile health being marketed as a something that could revolutionize the way health care is delivered, I think its important to separate useful improvements for the health care system as a whole from niche services which are likely to only benefit those who presently have no problem accessing primary care. In fact, one could argue that by making physicians so accessible through the use of technology that every industry but medicine already uses (i.e.- email), we could be increasing the number of unnecessary physician “visits,” thereby further increasing our country’s health care costs. With this in mind, I would argue that mobile health should be advanced in a thoughtful and careful manner, with special attention paid to situations where the potential for entrepreneurial profit is masked by a promise of widespread societal gain.
I managed to catch most of the final live webcast which was titled “mHealth Debate: Digital Efficiency and Extension or Disruptive Transformation?” with the underlying question of “Does mHealth Extend or Disrupt Existing Healthcare Systems?” (mHealth stqnds for mobile health). It was a great talk that highlighted a lot of issues related to this question (to which the answer was ultimately, it depends) and broader issues related to mHealth, what it is, its potential, and what is currently limiting its adoption. Two factors that panelists addressed as hindering greater implementation of mHealth are current reimbursement procedures and regulation by the FDA and FCC. As we’ve been talking about patient-centered care and financing this was especially salient to me. Currently fee for service reimbursement does not provide for mobile health or telemedicine services, however a transition to bundling will more adequately incentivize these types of services.
ReplyDeleteAnother theme of the talk the terminology surrounding mHealth and it was referred to as telemedicine, mobile health, ubiquitous health, and a number of others names. The final weigh-in by one of the panelists was that eventually it will become so pervasive and commonplace that there will be no distinction and it will just be called “health care” which I thought was particularly striking. This conversation, in conjunction with the talk we heard by Dr. Parkinson highlights the fact that not only is new technology advancing in ways that can uniquely improve and change health care, but also that new doctors are likely to implement and insist upon using these technologies. Coming generations of doctors will have been surrounded by technology in every other aspect of their lives and to forego it in their workplace will simply be an unacceptable course. It wasn’t mentioned in the talk that I heard, but I think this will likely be a driving force in a field that is otherwise often slow to adopt substantial changes.
Great summary Chelsea! There does seem to be a great deal of promise in this emerging form of medicine, and in fact, the school I used to work at made frequent use of telemedicine for its students. Many of kids there came from families who lacked the means to take off of work and bring their child into a doctor’s office for a routine check-up, and this system provided a great substitute for that traditional form of health care. However, this form of mobile health does seem starkly different to me from the Hello Health service that Dr. Parkinson promoted. While watching that presentation, I couldn’t help but marvel at the sales pitch we were getting. I wanted to sign up for the program at that very instant, but then I remembered we already have free health insurance through the University. It did sound wonderful, though. Nevertheless, underneath that rapid fire PowerPoint presentation was a fairly simple concierge form of health care primarily targeted at people who can afford to pay out of pocket for all their primary care needs. Also, it probably comes with a really cool iphone app.
ReplyDeleteDespite mobile health being marketed as a something that could revolutionize the way health care is delivered, I think its important to separate useful improvements for the health care system as a whole from niche services which are likely to only benefit those who presently have no problem accessing primary care. In fact, one could argue that by making physicians so accessible through the use of technology that every industry but medicine already uses (i.e.- email), we could be increasing the number of unnecessary physician “visits,” thereby further increasing our country’s health care costs. With this in mind, I would argue that mobile health should be advanced in a thoughtful and careful manner, with special attention paid to situations where the potential for entrepreneurial profit is masked by a promise of widespread societal gain.