IT revolution coming to local health care

June 19, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Is health IT the beginning of a revolution or just another bubble?

That was the question that Marcus Chandler, an attorney at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, put to me Tuesday during a panel discussion at the Life Sciences Lunch, an event hosted each month by the law firm and the Indiana Health Industry Forum.

It’s a good question. With $1.2 billion in venture capital flowing to health information technology companies last year—more than double the amount invested the year before—it’s natural to think back to the dot-com bubble that burst in 2000. I told Chandler that it’s plausible—perhaps even likely—that health IT is oversold.

But in spite of that, I still think we’re at the beginning of a health IT revolution, for three reasons: economics, demographics and the state of technology, itself.

The economic case for hospitals and doctors—who account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending—is clear. Health care costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 40 years. Now, employers and governments are finally crying “Uncle!” and blocking attempts by hospitals and doctors to boost their revenue. Hospital systems know they’re going to get less money per patient, which is why they’re trying to slash their expenses 20 percent.

I told the audience at the life sciences lunch that IT has a pretty good record of achieving efficiencies in most other industries. So that makes IT the obvious candidate for helping the health care industry tighten its belt.

Closely related to the economic case is demographics. The federal Medicare program faces insolvency in the not-too-distant future because the Greatest Generation is living longer than any before and the baby boomers are reaching retirement age, when their health care needs go up.

At the same time, lots of boomer doctors and nurses are retiring or soon will be. So health care providers need to care for more people with less money. Technology, such as that provided by Indianapolis-based VoCare Inc., is one way to extend the reach of health care providers without the need for a thousand fancy new buildings.

“We’ll be able to increase productivity without adding people,” said Raul Zavaleta, CEO of Indianapolis-based Indigo BioSystems Inc., which is selling software that automatically reads slides in pathology labs.

“We are automating analytical labs," he added. "They don’t have enough people doing this, they can’t find them, reimbursement is going lower, and they have to automate.”

There’s also strong evidence from technology itself that it’s ripe for revolution. In December 2011, two PricewaterhouseCoopers consultants, including local boy Brian Williams, wrote a fascinating article drawing distinct parallels between the state of medical technology now and the state of information technology in the early 1980s—on the cusp of the IT revolution.

There had been plenty of IT development from the 1950s to the 1980s, but it was big, expensive and not well connected. The industry competed on new features, but in the '80s those features began to lose their pricing power in the marketplace.

“Like health care today, information technology a generation ago was part of a classically maturing market that was about to enter an extended period of disruptive innovation,” Wasden and Williams wrote in In Vivo magazine.

Consider health care today. Drugmakers have been stymied because the FDA—and increasingly payers—are simply saying no to “me-too” products. Device makers, too, are being pushed to go beyond the small iterations they produce each year.

The same is true among hospitals. They’re still set up to provide acute care, but the health plans that are their customers are far less interested in paying more for the latest surgical equipment or high-end imaging technology.

What customers want instead is for the health care system to help keep patients healthy.

“There’s going to be more focus on the health and less on the care,” St. Vincent Health CEO Vince Caponi told me in an interview last week.

One of the only ways to do that is to use IT to track patients when they’re not in a health care setting and to give them mobile tools, like the WellDoc diabetes intervention system, to help them manage their diseases.

The established health care companies that figure out how to offer an entire service package to consumers will win in the end, contend Wasden and Williams. And the health IT companies that help them do that will win, too.

So those are my thoughts. How would you answer Chandler's question about health IT?

  • Dr. Who?
    Healthcare is so far behind the curve on technology it blows the mind. We have been hearing about how the healthcare industry will be embracing technology for about 20 years and what exactly have they done. I think everyone should stop going to the Dr. and just accept your fate. Make some lifestyle changes and maybe you will live to be 75 or so. Lets see how the docs and hospitals react when we all stop going.
  • Technology vs. Privacy
    Privacy advocates and government privacy regulation are a big reason that technology has been slow to evolve and be deployed in healthcare. And protecting patient privacy is critical to the success of technology in hospitals, clinics, physician practices, and other healthcare organizations. The challenge is that technology companies have not historically considered the security of information to be a primary concern as they develop hardware and software solutions. This leaves healthcare technologists in a Catch 22 situation. HIPAA/HITECH dictates that electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI) be secured from both inadvertent and malicious disclosures or breaches while the technology provider is focused on features and getting their product to market sooner than their competitor. It will take market forces to insist on security as a primary component of technology products before this obstacle is overcome.
    • Patients are the answer not IT
      This very well may be an import part of the future of health care, but reagrdless of the fancy devices that are made or drugs that are developed, if the patient is not motivated and does take their care seriously, then these investments will not do much to improve health. If patients embrace this, like employees and companies embraced IT in the 1990's, then this has the potential to make a difference.
      • Mom said learn to share
        Health care has had more tech advances then NASA in the 60's - just ask the doc's and hospitals; they'll be happy to perform (and bill) the latest high $ procedure on you. But they won't share, and seemingly don't trust, any image or test they don't order or perform. JK, do you know the cost we bear for duplicitous procedures, and the unwillingness of doctors and hospitals to share health info??
      • Patient Self Awareness
        healthforall - You are absolutely right that patients have to be motivated and take their care seriously. Many of the health IT innovations are based around providing patients regular awareness of what they do on a daily basis and how their activities could be a cause of improving or declining health. The fitness bracelets that have arrived over the past year or two are a perfect example of this. You can see how far you walk each day, what your daily sleep cycle looks like, etc. and being able to see data on a daily basis will inherently make patients more conscious of their individual decisions which will ideally result in health improvement and decreased healthcare costs. This is a small part of the solution, but one example of how we are in the beginning stages of a revolution in health IT as JK stated.
      • Privacy
        @Mike Childs. There are tons of other industries that are concerned about the privacy of its customers that have successfully embraced technology. The argument that healthcare is some how different is nonsense. Figure it out.
      • Healthcare IT
        Health care IT is in its infancy. It's too soon to declare a bubble. We are starting to see adoption but there are still challenges of usability, user adoption, and patient privacy.

      Post a comment to this blog

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by