Health 2.0

You are currently browsing articles tagged Health 2.0.

MedPedia is a new project similar to Wikipedia but for medicine. It will act as an online collaborative medical encyclopedia available to the general public. Unlike Wikipedia, content editors and creators are required to have an MD or a PhD. Organizations funding MedPedia include some well-known acronyms: CDC, NIH, and FDA.

One question remains: will MedPedia be a significant improvement over existing sites such as WebMD and MayoClinic? We will see when the site goes live at the end of 2008.

Tags: , , ,

As I noted in an earlier post, choosing a Medicare part D plan is difficult.  However, there are resources to help people choose a Medicare Part D plan based on which prescriptions they are taking and where they live.  Medicare has its own Personalized Plan Search.  The private sector also has come up with user-friendly ways to search for the best health care plans.  MedicareSaver has an easy-to-use plan selector which also includes a video guiding you along the site.

With Health 2.0 gaining strength, choosing a health insurance is not as difficult as it once was.

Tags: , , ,

Today, Google has made its Google Health program publicly available. You can get a tour of Google Health here and FAQs are available here.

TechCrunch has a great comparison (“…Hands-on Look“) of Google Health and Microsoft’s HealthVault.

“Whereas HealthVault’s strengths seem to lie in tying together different health information silos on the back end, Google Health is focusing more initially on the consumer side. It is trying to do an end-run around the health establishment by trying to get consumers to manually load their own medical information into their profiles. HealthVault allows this as well, but seems to have stronger partnerships with back-end health data providers.”

Google promises never to advertise on Google Health. So how will they make money? Likely, there will be a Google search bar in the Google Health portal and Google can collect ad revenue from related Google.com searches.

TechCrunch wisely points out that:

“…the key is importing your medical record in there. That is going to be a huge hurdle in terms of people feeling comfortable giving that sort of data to Google in the first place, and then simply getting the data in an electronic form from their doctors.”

El periódico el País relata su opinión en el artículo “El Dr. Google te recuerda que tomes la pastilla” (en español).

Tags: , ,

Rating websites are all the rage on the internet. From RateMyTeachers.com to RateMyCop.com, you can rate practically anything nowadays.

A new website called Vitals.com allows you now to rate your doctor as well. In addition to being able to read reviews from other patients, there are also other physician statistics. For instance, Vitals.com informs you whether or not the doctor is board certified, where the physician graduated from medical school, and also the rating of the medical school where they graduated.

For me, the more information available for patients, the better.

Tags:

GigaOM reports on some new Health 2.0 developments in Germany in its article “Health 2.0 Gaining Traction in Germany.”  Websites such as Helpster and Imedo are among a number of website which are now rating German physicians.  In order to take into account established medical institutions, Imedo is including the physician certification status as part of its rating.  This certification status is decided by the German Kassenärztliche Vereinigung, “a public organization in charge of distributing the lion’s share of physicians’ income.”

Will German physicians even engage in price competition for patients?  Two German websites believe so:

In the transactional domain, 2te-Zahnarztmeinung and Arzt-Preisvergleich have gained significant traction by running reverse auctions — primarily for dentists’ treatments — which allow for a high degree of comparability. Navigating closely on the edge of what German law allows, a potential patient does not have to automatically contract with the cheapest offering. Instead, she can compare all anonymously quoted prices and take into account the ratings given by patients who have undergone a similar treatment. The physician she chooses then awards 15 to 20 percent of his fee back to the platform.

Is this the wave of the future?  The Healthcare Economist says yes and no.

Yes because for medical procedures which are 1) fairly routine, 2) of relatively low risk and 3) where the patient has a high quality of information regarding the cost and benefits of the procedure, the internet can provide an important means of disseminating information and driving down price.  Dentist visits are predictable and quality is relatively easy to measure.  Thus using these websites will be a boon to consumers.

No because for more complicated procedures these website’s information will likely not be helpful.  Using outcome measures for complicated procedures must make risk adjustments to take into account patient case mix.  Process measures may be to simple to take into account factors such as disease interactions.  And structural measures (e.g.: nurse-patient ratio, the use of electronic medical records) may only be peripherally related to the quality of care.  I doubt that cardiothorasic surgeons will start bidding for patients any time in the near future.  Patients, whose cost for these expensive procedures will generally be covered by insurance, will choose a doctor likely based on their primary care doc’s referral or the opinions of their peers.

Thus, the Health 2.0 movement is likely to be a significant development for the low-cost, predictable sector of medical care.  Specialist and hospital care is much more difficult to measure and price and I believe will likely be hardly affected by these new developments.

Tags: ,