Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Dynamic Community Care Teams and the Role of Technology

On Thursday, November 21, 2011, I attended the Mass Technology Leadership Council Breakfast Seminar, How Technology is Enabling Dynamic Community Care Teams. Rick Siegrist, the CIO at Press Ganey, began the morning with a discussion about integrated care. He explained that integrated care is not merely organizational legal integration or coordination of service. It is a patient-centered model that often involves coordination within and across multiple care teams as well as across community resources, especially in patients with serious or chronic illnesses.

Integrated care requires a continuity of relationships and familiarity with patients over time and must also take into account what happens to patients between visits with care providers. Providers must learn to look at the care they are providing from the patient's viewpoint. At the same time, patients must share responsibility for and become engaged in their own care. To help with the integrated care model, Siegrist explains that providers are now able to mine with web for feelings in addition to facts using what he called "The New Science of Sentiment Analysis," a process that analyzes customer opinions to extract feelings. Patient satisfaction surveys are a very meaningful database of information because when people are involved in a life and death situation or a trauma, their responses are likely to be more meaningful and honest because they have a strong personal connection to what occurred. Hospitals must take steps to respond to patient opinions and criticisms found in these surveys. If they don't take action, patients with negative experiences will broadcast them on Facebook or blog about them, creating larger-scale negative publicity that providers and hospitals did not have to deal with in the past.

Siegrist concluded with an example of "low-tech" integrated care, explaining that Harvard Vanguard, Cleveland Clinic, Kaiser, Dartmouth and the VA have begun to offer shared medical visits for patients. Under this model, eight to 12 patients, all of whom sign privacy agreements, gather with a doctor, a nurse, a behaviorist and a documenter for a 90-minute appointment. Patients (who may or may not have similar medical conditions) take turns being examined and all are present for questions and explanations by the provider. The documenter records the entire appointment. These shared medical visits improve access to care (patients might get an appointment with a sought-after provider next week instead of six months from now), encourage patient involvement (patients share information with each other about their conditions) and garner higher provider satisfaction ratings (because providers do not feel rushed to move on to the next appointment). Take a look at his presentation here.

Betsy Weaver, CEO of TPR Media LLC, discussed her company's recent launch of UbiCare (the name comes from the word, "ubiquitous"), a social media tool designed to enhance and streamline how healthcare connects with patients through Facebook, Twitter, text messaging and email. Weaver explained that US healthcare is facing irreversible change. Currently, quality of US healthcare is poor and costly, a combination that definitely needs to change. Healthcare's solution must improve outcomes and create cost savings for patients and providers alike. She launched UbiCare because healthcare must be where patients are. A recent Pew Internet & American Life Project showed that 79% of all Americans are online, six of ten have wireless connections, small screens outnumber big screens and one of every three US adults has a smartphone. She explained that the only people who really do not use the Internet are those over 70 years old without a high school education. Betsy's presentation is available here.

Ken Accardi, the CTO of iGetBetter.com, described how his company's software allows hospitals to put patient discharge plans online and track patient follow-up care more closely. It gives providers the ability to monitor patient pain levels and see whether they are taking prescribed medication.

Coming at the health care relationship from a different angle, Benjamin Bielak, CIO of Dovetail Health, said that his company's goal is to keep hospital admissions down and keep patients at home by developing an emotional connection with them, thereby reducing the risks of higher costs and potential illness stemming from hospitalization. Dovetail providers conduct an initial two-hour appointment where they ask patients what their emotional goals are. If a patient's goal is to attend his daughter's wedding, Dovetail works with the patient to try to reduce hospital admissions, keep the patient healthy and ultimately, to make his goal a reality.

Kathy Duckett, Director of Clinical Programs at Partners Healthcare at Home, told the group that her agency makes 3,600 home visits to patients each day, for a total of over 400,000 per year. Because PHH is a certified home health agency, it must abide by federal guidelines and regulations and is limited to providing skilled nursing visits to homebound patients. Despite these limitations, PHH must begin to think outside the box and has launched that Telehealth program which provides remote monitoring of 250 patients who are not homebound, but are frequently hospitalized. This program empowers patients to be more involved with their own care.

Finally, Marie Maloney, CIO of Senior Whole Health, spoke of the difficulties her agency encounters providing care to Medicare/Medicaid eligible patients with an average age of 74, many of whom are not connected to the Internet. They have adopted a member-centric model that provides care at the level deemed most appropriate for the patient, either annually, every six months or twice monthly. Forging a relationship with these patients and their families, only 46% of whom are English speaking, is the "secret sauce" to engaging these frail, uneducated seniors. Senior Whole Health employees speak many languages and care providers often come from the culture or community in which they are working.

So what is a dynamic community care team? First and foremost, it must be focused on patient needs and must respect what the patient wants. It requires participation from all those who are involved with a patient-providers, the patient, family caregivers (to the extent the patient wants family members privy to health care information), home health aides, and care managers. Ideally, a dynamic community care team will have a centralized record keeping system, where all those involved with a patient's care can share access to information on a real time basis.

But questions and issues remain with respect to the use of technology to enhance patient care real time. Some providers, for example, are concerned about the use of email. If a patient or caregiver emails a provider about a high blood sugar level, for example, and the provider is unable to respond immediately, is the provider liable if something happens to the patient?

There is also a debate about what information should be shared. Providers want information they can act on; information overload is not helpful. Perhaps most helpful would be an easy-to-use system that can adapt to provide information providers want, based upon the changing needs of the patient. Unfortunately, this kind of system takes time and money to build. For it to work effectively, patients and providers must also be convinced of its value. While we are waiting for a better system, providers must continue to try to provide more integrated care, keep things simple and forge an emotional connection with patients to keep them invested in their own care.

Sharon Patton

November 22, 2011

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Integration in a Fragmented Mobile World

Yesterday's mobile cluster seminar, Integration in a Fragmented Mobile World, brought some great interactive discussion on developing and deploying among different operating systems, devices, and applications. Panelists were Raj Aggarwal of Localytics, Nick Brachet of Skyhook Wireless, Alex Donn of AT&T, and Bill Ginaoukos of HeyWire, and our moderator of the morning Andrew Borg of Aberdeen Group.

The audience questions kicked off immediately and didn't stop until the event ended. The underlying theme was "HTML5 or Native?". While the panel members weren't always in agreement on timelines, they all did agree that HTML5 alone was not yet sufficient to be used in rich applications that needed to go across different platforms. They also agreed that there is a place for HTML5 in developing tools and applications for a single device, such as iPad only apps or when the tool is to provide content only, such as the Kindle Fire.

There was also some discussion of a 'hybrid' mode, with HTML5 be used as a common "core" with a native 'wrapper'. This allows the deployment to be standardized among platforms, but the application is still native to each device.

There are a number of ways to test across platforms for enterprises developing their own tools, such as PhoneGap, RedFoundry, or Gomez. But the most essential thing an enterprise must do prior to developing the tools, is to develop a strategic plan - identify your audience, and what you want to accomplish.

Some important take-homes of the day:

- Identify users: B2B, B2C and B2E (E=employees)

- Going to a mobile platform is not an easy thing to do, but it is necessary, so develop a strong strategy

- Adoption will demand whether HTML5 ever supersedes native

Friday, November 4, 2011

What Are VCs Doing Today? Trends in Venture Capital Investing

At this year’s Mass TLC unConference, WilmerHale hosted a panel of three venture capitalists to discuss trends in venture capital investing.

WilmerHale Counsel Josh Fox moderated the discussion, which featured Jeff Fagnan of Atlas Ventures, David Beisel of Next View Ventures and Eric Paley of Founder Collective.

The panelists weighed in on various topics as part of a dynamic discussion with an audience of entrepreneurs. The following represents just a snapshot of the full conversation.

Q: How early is "too early" for you and your firm to invest?

A: There is no rule. We make our investment decisions based on the team, the market and the technology. We might invest in a company that is very early in its development and business operations because we believe in the potential for the team, the market and the technology.

Q: How small an investment are you willing to make?

A: We make very small investments, in addition to larger ones. Dollar amounts can be as low as $50,000 to $100,000.

Q: How are your early-stage seed investments structured?

A: The smaller investments are often structured as convertible debt.

Q: When you structure an investment as convertible debt, do you negotiate for a cap on the company's valuation with respect to the conversion of that debt into stock?

A: Yes, we typically ask for a cap.

Q: How can a founder pick the right VC?

A: Choose based on the prior investments of the venture capital firm and particular partner. Determine how the VC can add value. Make sure that the firm has experience in your space. Research whether the VC has invested in a direct competitor of yours.

Q: How can an entrepreneur communicate openly with a VC when he or she wants to remain in stealth mode? Will you sign an NDA?

A: We won't sign a confidentiality agreement. However, we are not in the business of starting companies in order to compete with a founder who pitches their idea to us. We are in the business of investing in companies and listen to general descriptions of businesses routinely. You can also carefully select the VCs to talk to, not contacting VCs that have invested in a direct competitor.

Each of the VCs provided his own answers to the above questions, and many others, based on personal experience and perspective. The above is only a brief summary of what was discussed and highlights some of the varying viewpoints of the VCs and those in the audience. It should not be attributed to any one person or entity. Any questions about the above, feel free to contact Josh Fox at joshua.fox@wilmerhale.com

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

HOW (AND WHY) TO PICK AN ACCELERATOR

NEGATIVES (why you shouldn’t join an accelerator)

Accelerator-hopping
- Perpetual grad student
Puts off risk & real decisions
- Training wheels
- When do you kick the baby out of the nest?
- Does this kind of support attract the best entrepreneurs?
- Miss opportunity to build character, as Aerosmith did on their first, D-I-Y tours.
Overexposure

3 CATEGORIES OF 'ACCELERATOR'
Founders: These organizations start new companies in-house, from technology or ideas.
Examples:
- Idealab
- Universities
- Venture firms - Flagship Ventures, Kepha Partners, Highland (Entrepreneur Center)
Investors: Structured like venture funds, they take equity in participant companies
Examples:
- Techstars
- Y Combinator
- Vermont Center for Entrepreneurship
Vendors: Provide services in exchange for fees, or use other revenue models (corporate / government / nonprofit sponsorship or affiliation)
Examples:
- Cambridge Innovation Center
- MassChallenge
- DogPatch Labs
- Summer@Highland

SERVICES
Program focus:
- Time to market
- Funding
- Customer acquisition (B2B/B2C)
- Bootstrapping
Modes of delivery:
Peer-to-peer
- Established companies inside an accelerator are an 'engine' to pull new companies
- Ad hoc social conversations
- Participation: You can’t sit in a corner and code
- Can an accelerator attract quality peers? If they have attractive terms, yes.
Referral
- Platform for access to industry advisors, mentors
- Speakers
- In Techstars, mentors provide 80 percent of the value - per one participant
Competition
- Business Plan Competitions
- 3 to 4 days
- emphasis on presentations
- 7 out of 10 participants are 'real businesses'
- 'Act of preparing' for competition is helpful
MassChallenge
- Connections
- Lean Startup Challenge
- Competition prize serves as a ‘rallying point’ for team - more than a motivator for individuals
-  Deadlines
- Peer pressure
Any program for which entrance is competitive (Techstars, Dogpatch): Can it motivate entrepreneurs through the application process alone?


STAGES OF COMPANY BUILDING: Different programs work at different stages, and some are complementary to, or feeder programs for others.

Idea stage
- Summer@Highland (some momentum behind the business - product dev, team, advisors)
- Universities: Launching entrepreneurship programs to prevent student attrition to startups.
- MIT MediaLab / e-Center
- Harvard Innovation Lab
Established company, with 'some' funding: This is where equity-based accelerators like TechStars typically fit in. DogPatch also plays in this area.
- DogPatch: 70 percent 'established'; 30 % are 'two guys, a keyboard and a goat.'

RESEARCH
Northeastern University survey for entrepreneurs, studying the impact of accelerators: http://bit.ly/helpafounderout

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Thanks to Attendees and Sponsors of Innovation 2011!

The Innovation 2011 unConference was an incredible success because of all of the experts, attendees and sponsors who participated. The day was packed with valuable sessions on an incredible range of topics and important connections were made all throughout the day. The feedback is pouring in...this is THE tech event in Boston and we can't wait to make it happen again next year.

Innovation 2011 unConference: Dharmesh Shah Interview

HubSpot founder and CTO Dharmesh Shah was one of the 800 attendees at Innovation 2011. Here's his take on the day and the sessions he attended.