[grow_thumb image=”http://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Interpreta-Higi.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Higi (also higi), which has placed health monitoring kiosks in over 11,000 US retail locations and a 5.5 million signup base, and data cruncher Interpreta announced that they are partnering to blend Higi’s vital signs data with Interpreta’s claims, clinical and genomics data analytics. Based on Mobihealthnews’ article and the joint release, an individual’s health information taken at higi retail stations will be “prioritized within Interpreta in real time”. They also claim that for the first time, insurance payers and providers will be able to leverage biometrics data, clinical, claims and additional genomic information a person may obtain from genetic testing services into a ‘personalized care roadmap’ that closes gaps in care. This is positioned as a big advance in population health and it all sounds great.
Perhaps not so great are the details. What about consent and data security? Aside from absolutely no mention of patient consent and HIPAA compliance in the above news, this Editor suspects that past, current and future Higi users may not be made aware that their vital signs data recorded with Higi will be 1) sent into a non-Higi database and 2) integrated with other information that appears in Interpreta’s database. How is this being done? Is consent obtained? What then happens? Is it used on an identified or de-identified basis? Where is it going? Who is doing what with it? Can it be sold, as 23andme’s genomic information is (with consent, but still…)? “Interpreta works in the realm of precision medicine, continuously interpreting and synchronizing clinical and genomics data in real time to create a personalized roadmap to enable the orchestration of timely care.” but they do this for providers and health plans who are then responsible for privacy and data integrity. Consent for Higi to keep a record of your blood pressure when you drop into your local RiteAid or ShopRite is not consent for Interpreta to use or manipulate it. These questions should have been addressed in the release or an accompanying fact sheet. We welcome a response from either Higi or Interpreta.
And one last and exceedingly ‘gimlety’ observation by this Editor: kiosks get hacked, and here we have not a price to a McDonald’s meal but a portal to deep PHI. Here’s a two-part article in an industry publication, Kiosk Marketplace, if you are skeptical. Part 1, Part 2
[grow_thumb image=”http://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Most-Useful-Sources-of-Health-Care-Data-Today-and-in-5-Years.png” thumb_width=”150″ /]A frustration of everyone in healthcare and technology is the unfulfilled promise of Big Data
. A study conducted by a team for NEJM Catalyst
(New England Journal of Medicine
) of 682 health care executives, clinical leaders, and clinicians indicates that at present, very few (<20 percent) believe that their healthcare organizations extremely or very effectively use data for direct patient care; 40 percent believe it is not very effective or not at all effective.
The hope comes in a trend over the next five years (NJEM chart at left above, click to enlarge). Presently, the most useful sources of data are clinical (95 percent), cost (56 percent), and claims (56 percent). In five years, they project that the top four will be clinical (82 percent) and cost (58 percent) joined by patient-generated and genomic data (both at 40 percent). How that patient-generated data will be compiled to be useful is not described, but the hope is that “With patient-generated data and genomic data, we will be able to create true “n of 1” medicine with options specific to each patient’s needs, giving a boost to priorities such as care coordination and improved clinical decision support.”
A possible roadblock is the lack of interoperability of EHRs. Less than 10 years ago, the EHR was touted as The Solution to patient records and a repository of Everything. 51 percent indicate that interoperability is weak. One-third believe that ease of use and training for EHRs are also weak.
Other findings indicated strong support for greater patient access to personal medical records (93 percent), fee/price information for comparison shopping (80 percent), and outcomes information listed by hospital (73 percent)–but not by doctor (55 percent).
The full report is available for download at the NEJM Catalyst link here. Also Mobihealthnews.
[grow_thumb image=”http://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BlueSiloCollapsing-41.jpg” thumb_width=”175″ /]Awash in a rising sea of data generated by devices and analytics–around treatments, population health, costs–there’s a struggle to make sense of it. We’ve noted the high value and merchandisability of 23andme
‘s genomic data (gained by individual user consent) [TTA 5 Mar
], but our healthcare institutions which should be codifying and sharing disease and treatment data, largely do not. Those with rare or ‘orphan’ diseases struggle to find information, diagnosis, fellow patients, treatments. They sometimes win breakthroughs by, believe it or not, blogging, and having their articles widely disseminated. Reasons why? According to David Shaywitz in Forbes
, they are:
- Hospitals, even research based centers, struggle to codify their genotype and phenotype data of their patients in a meaningful way that would be usable for clinical decision making. We’ve also noted (oddly not Mr Shaywitz) the long implementation process of IBM Watson cognitive processing/decision making tools in healthcare, the concentration on single diseases and their spread into other industries plus third-party integration outside of healthcare [TTA 9 Oct 14]. (more…)