Categories

Above the Fold

Pending Federal Privacy Legislation: A Status Update

Vince Kuraitis
Deven McGraw

By DEVEN McGRAW and VINCE KURAITIS

This post is part of the series “The Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma: Privacy? Sharing? Both?”

In our initial blog post of February 20th, “For Your Radar – Huge Implications for Healthcare in Pending Privacy Legislation,” we broadly discussed six key issues for healthcare stakeholders in the potential federal privacy and data protection legislation. We committed to future posts comparing and contrasting specific legislative proposals.  

What’s happened since then? 

Additional bills have been introduced and hearings have been held in both the House and the Senate.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also hosted two days of hearings on the FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy.  

The buzz around federal privacy legislation continues, but as of yet there appear to be no proposals or bills that have emerged as the lead bills. 

In the meantime, the clock is ticking.  As we mentioned in our February 20th post, a significant catalyst for federal privacy legislation is the desire of companies covered by the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to have that broadly-applicable, stringent state law preempted by a more company-friendly federal law.  The CCPA, which sets stringent consent and other requirements for large companies, or companies collecting or monetizing large amounts of consumer data from California residents, goes into effect January 1, 2020 – less than six months from today.  

Is it possible for a legislative body to move quickly on such a controversial topic?  Again, California’s experience may be instructive. The CCPA was passed into law and signed on June 28, 2018, about a week after it was introduced. Lawmakers were in a rush in order to keep a popular and even stricter consumer privacy ballot initiative from being put before the California voters.  (The sponsors of the ballot initiative agreed to withdraw it if the CCPA were enacted by the June 28th deadline.). 


Tech companies held their noses and supported the legislation because changing legislation is easier than changing a ballot initiative adopted by the voters. However, this strategy is not fool-proof.  Although the CCPA has been successfully modified once to address some company concerns and to clarify confusing language, more recent attempts to amend it have failed (modification bills are still pending).  With the deadline fast approaching, and the prospect for further significant modifications to the CCPA looking less likely, the pressure on Congress is reaching a fever pitch.

Continue reading…

Those Digital Health IPOs—Flipping the Stack & Filling the Gap

By MATTHEW HOLT

I’ve been driven steadily nuts by a series of recent articles that are sort of describing what’s happening in health tech or (because the term won’t die) digital health, so I thought it was time for the definitive explanation. Yeah, yeah, humility ain’t my strong suit.

It won’t have escaped your attention that, after five years during which Castlight Health more or less single-handedly killed the IPO market for new health tech companies, suddenly in the middle of July 2019 we have three digital health companies going public. While Livongo, (FD-a THCB sponsor) Phreesia and Health Catalyst are all a little bit different, I’m going to use them to explain what the last decade of health tech evolution has meant.

Don’t get carried away by the precise details of the IPOs. Phressia is already out with a market cap of $845m. Yes, it’s true that none of the three are profitable yet, but they are all showing decent revenue growth at an annual run rate of $100m+ and Livongo in particular has been on a client acquisition and annual triple digit revenue growth tear. It’s also the newest of these companies, founded only in 2014, albeit by buying another company (EosHealth) founded in 2008 that had some of the tech they launched with. Going public doesn’t really mean that the health care market will swoon for them, nor that they are guaranteed to change the world. After all, as I pointed out in my recent somewhat (ok, very) cynical 12 rules for health tech startups, UnitedHealth Group has $250 Billion in revenue and doesn’t seem to be able to change the system. And anyone who remembers the eHealth bust of 2000-2002 knows that just because you get to the IPO, it’s no guarantee of success or even survival.

But just by virtue of making it this far and being around the 1/10th of 1% of health tech startups to make it to IPO, we can call all three a success. But what do they do?

They are all using new technologies to tackle longstanding health care problems.

Continue reading…

Announcing a New Series: “The Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma: Sharing? Privacy? Both?

By ZOYA KHAN

I would like to introduce you to a new ongoing series that THCB will be featuring called “The Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma: Sharing? Privacy? Both?”. It is about time we started talking about health data privacy and policy, and we have just the experts on hand to do so: Vince Kuratis and Deven McGraw.

The Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma: Sharing? Privacy? Both?” series will cover a whole host of topics that discuss, clarify, and challenge the notion of sharing data and if it should be kept private or made public. On the one hand, sharing health information is essential for clinical care, powering medical discovery, and enabling health system transformation. On the other hand, the public is expressing greater concerns over the privacy of personal health data. This ‘Goldilocks Dilemma’ has pushed US policymakers towards two seemingly conflicting goals: 1) broader data interoperability and data sharing, and 2) enhanced data privacy and data protection.

But this issue is even more nuanced and is influenced by many moving parts including: Federal & State privacy legislation, health technology legislation, policy & interoperability rules, data usage from AI & machine learning tools, data from clinical research, ethical concerns, compensating individuals for their data, health data business models, & many more. 

Fear not, Deven & Vince are here to walk readers through this dilemma and will be providing pieces to help explain what is going on. Most of their discussion & pieces will cover 2 specific affected areas: 1) How are policymakers addressing health data privacy risks, and 2) The impact on business models within the Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma.

We hope you enjoy the series and if you have any pieces to add to it, please email me zoya@thehealthcareblog.com

Zoya Khan is the Editor-in-Chief of THCB & an Associate at SMACK.health

Zeev Neuwirth Reframes Primary Care…Brilliantly

By AL LEWIS

I would urge THCB-ers to read Reframing Healthcare by Dr. Zeev Neuwirth. While much of the territory he covers will be familiar to those of us with an interest in healthcare reform (meaning just about everyone reading this blog), Chapter 5 breaks new ground in the field of primary care.

Primary care is perhaps the sorest spot in healthcare, the sorest of industries. Primary care providers (PCPs) are underpaid, dissatisfied, and in short supply. (The supply issue could be solved in part if employers didn’t pay employees bonuses to get useless annual checkups or fine them if they don’t, of course.) 

They are also expected to stay up to date on a myriad of topics, but lack the time in which to do that and typically don’t get compensated for it. Plus, there are a million other “asks” that have nothing to do with seeing actual patients.

For instance, I’ve gone back and forth three times with my PCP as she tries to get Optum to cover 60 5-milligram zolpidems (Ambien) instead of 30 10-milligram pills. (I already cut the 5 mg. pills in half. Not fair or good medicine to ask patients to try to slice those tiny 10 mg pills into quarters. And not sure why Optum would incentivize patients to take more of this habit-forming medicine instead of less.)

This can’t be fun for her. No wonder PCPs burn out and leave the practice faster than other specialties. What some of my physician colleagues call the “joy of practice” is simply not there.

Continue reading…

Will Amazon Deliver a Single-Payer Health Care System for the U.S.?

By JOE GRACE

Amazon has quietly put together a syndicate including Berkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan to provide better and more affordable health care for their combined 1.2 million workers. 

The joint effort, called Haven, makes sense because many companies of size today are self-insured to provide health care at lower costs. But this is different. Jeff Bezos, Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett seem to be personally involved in the development of Haven. So, what could they possibility have up their sleeves?

At the same time, many Democrats running for president are promising single payer health care (Medicare For All) as the solution to controlling costs and providing quality health care for everyone. Republicans argue that this is socialism and will result in unacceptable increases in taxes that will ruin our economy.

While politicians debate, Amazon’s real objective may be to create a health care payer to rival all payers with tens of millions of Amazon Prime Members as health plan members.

With Amazon’s buying power, scale and capabilities, the ecommerce giant could create a health payer offering that could render the need for a single payer system moot.

Continue reading…

Health in 2 Point 00 | Episode 88, IPO Mania!

On Episode 88 of Health in 2 Point 00, Jess and I talk about all of the IPOs occurring in health tech today. First up is Livongo, with their IPO valuation set at $2 Billion, they have the highest valuation but I wonder if they will be able to grow at the same rate and expand to other sectors to serve their patient populations. Health Catalyst is up next, with their IPO valuation set at $800 Million, it will be interesting to see if they are going to continue down their enterprise play or switch over to SaaS, and last is Phreesia (that has been around longer than the other two) with its IPO valuation set at $500 Million that acts as a front door to the EMR management system- Matthew Holt

Announcing the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation SDoH & Home and Community Based Care Innovation Challenges Semi-Finalists!

SPONSORED POST

By CATALYST @ HEALTH 2.0

Health disparities domestically and globally can often be attributed to social determinants of health (SDoH). According to Healthy People 2020, SDoH are conditions and resources in the environments in which “people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” Examples of these include: resources to meet daily needs (e.g. access to and quality of housing and food markets), educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and transportation. Despite well-established literature on the importance of SDoH, these factors are often overlooked and excluded in health care frameworks. 

Concurrently, health services provided in traditional settings such as hospitals and clinics can be expensive and inaccessible. There are a large number of communities, from rural areas to major cities, that are in need of high-quality care. Innovative technologies can mitigate these challenges. Home and community-based care models coupled with digital tools provide the opportunity to serve patients where they feel most comfortable in a cost-effective manner. 

In an effort to spur creativity in the SDoH tech environment and improve the landscape of home based care, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Catalyst partnered to launch two Innovation Challenges on Social Determinants of Health and Home and Community Based Care

For the SDoH Challenge, innovators were asked to develop novel digital solutions that can help providers and/or patients connect to health services related to SDoH. Over 110 applications were submitted to the SDoH Challenge. For the Home and Community Based Care Challenge, applicants were asked to create technologies that support the advancement of at-home or community-based health care. Nearly 100 applications for Home and Community Based Care Challenge were received. 

Continue reading…

A Patient in the Lobby Refuses to Leave: Medical Emergency, Unhappy Customer or Active Shooter?

By HANS DUVEFELT, MD

The receptionist interrupted me in the middle of my dictation.

“There’s a woman and her husband at the front desk. She’s already been seen by Dr. Kim for chest pain, but refuses to leave and her husband seems really agitated. They’re demanding to speak with you.”

I didn’t take the time to look up the woman’s chart. This could be a medical emergency, I figured. Something may have developed in just the last few minutes.

I hurried down the hall and unlocked the door to the lobby. I had already noticed the man and the woman standing at the glassed-in reception desk.

“I’m Dr. Duvefelt, can I help you?” I began, one hand on the still partway open door behind me.

The husband did the talking.

“My wife just saw Dr. Kim for chest pain and he thought it was nothing. He didn’t have any of her old records, so how could he know?”

While I quickly considered my response, knowing that Dr. Kim is a very thorough and conscientious physician, the man continued:

“Can we get out of here, and step inside for some privacy?”

My mind raced. This was either a medical emergency or an unhappy customer situation. We had the door locks installed not long ago on the advice of the police and many other sources of guidance for clinics like ours. It was a decision made by our Board of Directors. In this age of school, workplace and church shootings, everyone is preparing for such scenarios. We are always reminded not to bring people inside the “secure” areas of our clinics who don’t have an appointment or a true medical emergency.

I figured I had to find out more about this woman’s chest pain in order to make my decision whether to let her inside again; after all, she had just been evaluated.

“Ma’am, are you having chest pain right now?” I asked.

“A little”, she answered.

“How long have you had it?” I probed.

“A couple of years now.”

“And you just saw Dr. Kim?”

“Yes, and he said my EKG looked okay, but he didn’t bother to ask me about you heart valve operation three years ago in, Boston. He just said ’we’ll get those records’, and he told me I was okay today.”

The husband broke in, “It’s the same everywhere we go, everybody just says it’s not a heart attack, but we need more answers than that. we know what it isn’t, but we need to know what it is!” He added, again, “can’t we go inside for some privacy?”

“Have you been seen elsewhere for the same thing?” I said without answering the request.

“Yes, at the emergency room in Concord, New Hampshire when we lived there…”

“Did Dr. Kim have you sign a records release form so we can get the records from Boston and New Hampshire?” I asked.

“Yes”, the woman answered.

“Then that’s all we can do today,” I said. “I hear you telling me this is an ongoing problem, you’ve already been assessed today and Dr. Kim told you that you’re safe today and we’ve requested your old records. That’s what needs to happen.”

“You mean you’re not going to help us today?”

“You’ve seen Dr.Kim, your records will get here, I don’t know what more we can do for you today.”

“You’ll hear about this”, the husband said as they stormed out. Another man in the lobby introduced himself to them and said “I’ll be your witness.”

I closed the self-locking door and wished I had somehow been more skilled and more diplomatic, and I wished the world wasn’t the way it has become in just a few years, with more concern for bolted doors, gun violence and mass shootings than simple customer relations.

Hans Duvefelt is a Swedish-born rural Family Physician in Maine. This post originally appeared on his blog, A Country Doctor Writes, here.

Announcing the GuideWell Matchmaking Summit

SPONSORED POST

By CATALYST @ HEALTH 2.0

GuideWell Innovation, in collaboration with Catalyst @ Health 2.0, is thrilled to announce the opening of applications for the GuideWell Matchmaking Summit – a new corporate/investor matchmaking event hosted at the GuideWell Innovation Center in Orlando, FL on August 29-30, 2019.

This exciting opportunity connects established healthcare organizations and investors with growing health technology companies. Through professionally curated meetings, the event is designed to encourage synergistic relationships while promoting the testing, commercialization, financing and adoption of innovative digital health tools. Meetings are arranged based on participating organizations’ needs and areas of expertise, allowing for the cultivation of diverse partnership opportunities between digital health innovators, healthcare corporations, and investors that support the growing digital health ecosystem.

The GuideWell Matchmaking Summit is a 2-day event that will be held at the GuideWell Innovation Center in Orlando, FL. The first day of the Summit will be a corporate matchmaking opportunity for invited scale up health technology companies to meet with healthcare organizations that are qualified customer prospects. participants will have a series of meetings that are arranged based on “matched” areas of focus. Innovators will have the opportunity to demo their technology, detail their value proposition, and discuss business avenues with potential partners. Concurrently, healthcare leaders can identify up-and-coming digital health products to utilize at their organizations.

The second day of the Summit will be an investor showcase/matchmaking event for invited health technology scale ups to connect with a national network of venture capitalists. Scale up health technology companies will be competitively selected to attend the Summit based on customer/investor fit with attending corporations and investors.

Continue reading…

Price-Fixing Case Reveals Vulnerability of Generic Drug Policies

By ANDREW MULCAHY

A massive lawsuit filed in May by 44 states accuses 20 major drug makers of colluding for years to inflate prices on more than 100 generic drugs, including those to treat H.I.V., cancer and depression. If true, the alleged behavior is not just a violation of antitrust law, but also a betrayal of the government policies that created and defended the entire generic drug industry. 

Most prescriptions in the U.S. today — 9 in 10 — are filled with generics, which are just as safe and effective as their brand-name equivalent. And yet generics account for only 22 percent of U.S. prescription drug spending. These prices are so low because of competition between makers of different versions of the same generic drug. The more competing generic alternatives, the lower the price, theoretically right down to the marginal cost of manufacturing the pill. 

This success is the result of decades of careful federal and state policymaking, all geared towards introducing competition in prescription drug markets. The entire generic industry has its origins in the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984. Prior to Hatch-Waxman, a company that wanted to sell a competing version of a drug whose patents had expired had to conduct lengthy and expensive clinical trials to get approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Hatch-Waxman established a quicker, less-expensive path to FDA approval that leans on the scientific research supporting the already approved brand-name drugs.  

Hatch-Waxman also created incentives for generic drug makers to challenge drug patents that prevent competition. Successful challengers win a 180-day period of exclusivity during which their generic is the only one allowed to compete with the brand-name drug. The floodgates open and additional competition pushes prices down further after the 180-day period.  

Continue reading…

Registration

Forgotten Password?