THCB

Categories

Tag: Kim Bellard

THCB Gang Episode 143, Friday November 8

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Friday November 8 are THCB regular writer and ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); Principal of Worksite Health Advisors Brian Klepper (@bklepper1); patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@mlmillenson); and digital health investment banker Steven Wardell (@StevenWardell). There may well be a discussion about an election.

You can see the video below live (and later archived) & if you’d rather listen than watch, the audio is preserved as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels.

Inventors (and Innovators) Wanted

By KIM BELLARD

I thought about writing about the election, but I’m too anxious – and a little terrified – about it, so I’ll take a pass. I was intrigued by Oracle Health’s promise of an AI-driven, “next-generation” EHR, or the news that OpenAI was introducing ChatGPT search, but I felt that each was inevitable and yet that both would prove underwhelming in the short term.

So I decided to write about invention.

The November issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine is all about invention, starting with the tantalizing overview Why the Art of Invention Is Always Being Reinvented. “Invention doesn’t come from some innate genius, it’s not something that only really special people get to do,” says Stephanie Couch, executive director of the Lemelson MIT Program. 

Still, authors Eliza Strickland and Peter B. Meyer warn, “…the limits of what an individual can achieve have become starker over time. To tackle some of the biggest problems facing humanity today, inventors need a deep-pocketed government sponsor or corporate largess to muster the equipment and collective human brainpower required.”

Tell that to UTEP student Tayia Oddonetto. While an undergraduate, she had an epiphany. “During class, the professor said that if someone discovered how to turn brine, water with a high salt concentration, into something of value, it’d be revolutionary for the planet. At that moment, I told myself I was going to be the one who found the solution for brine, and that thought has never left me.”

And she did it. Instead of the more common reverse osmosis (RO) method of desalination, which at best converts 85% of salt water into fresh water and leaves a problematic 15% of concentrated brine, Ms. Oddonetto used something called salt-free, electrodialysis metathesis. As the press release describes it: “Salt-free electrodialysis metathesis treats brine by passing it through ion exchange membranes, thin sheets or films, and electrical currents that work to separate salt from water at the molecular level.”

Her approach produced over 90% fresh water, and generated higher levels of valuable metals and minerals that can be repurposed across several industries including technology, health and food.

Continue reading…

THCB Gang Episode 140, Thursday October 3

OK we are really back.! Following last weeks special with the Women Healthcare Leaders for Progress, the “regular” THCBGang is coming back for the Fall, mostly but not always at the 1pm PT 4pm ET timeslot on Thursdays.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday October 3 at 1pm PST 4pm EST are futurist Jeff Goldsmith: delivery & platform expert Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis); author & ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard);

You can see the video below & if you’d rather listen than watch, the audio is preserved as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels

Innovators: Avoid Health Care

By KIM BELLARD

NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang has become quite the media darling lately, due to NVIDIA’s skyrocketing market value the past two years ($3.3 trillion now, thank you very much. A year ago it first hit $1 trillion). His company is now the world’s third largest company by market capitalization. Last week he gave the commencement speech at Caltech, and offered those graduates some interesting insights.

Which, of course, I’ll try to apply to healthcare.

Mr. Jensen founded NVIDIA in 1993, and took the company public in 1999, but for much of its existence it struggled to find its niche. Mr. Huang figured NVIDIA needed to go to a market where there were no customers yet – “because where there are no customers, there are no competitors.” He likes to call this “zero billion dollar markets” (a phrase I gather he did not invent).

About a decade ago the company bet on deep learning and A.I. “No one knew how far deep learning could scale, and if we didn’t build it, we’d never know,” Mr. Huang told the graduates. “Our logic is: If we don’t build it, they can’t come.”

NVIDIA did build it, and, boy, they did come.

He believes we all should try to do things that haven’t been done before, things that “are insanely hard to do,” because if you succeed you can make a real contribution to the world.  Going into zero billion dollar markets allows a company to be a “market maker, not a market-taker.” He’s not interested in market share; he’s interested in developing new markets.

Accordingly, he told the Caltech graduates:

I hope you believe in something. Something unconventional, something unexplored. But let it be informed, and let it be reasoned, and dedicate yourself to making that happen. You may find your GPU. You may find your CUDA. You may find your generative AI. You may find your NVIDIA.

And in that group, some may very well.

He didn’t promise it would be easy, citing his company’s own experience, and stressing the need for resilience. “One setback after another, we shook it off and skated to the next opportunity. Each time, we gain skills and strengthen our character,” Mr. Huang said. “No setback that comes our way doesn’t look like an opportunity these days… The world can be unfair and deal you with tough cards. Swiftly shake it off. There’s another opportunity out there — or create one.”

He was quite pleased with the Taylor Swift reference; the crowd seemed somewhat less impressed.

Continue reading…

It’s the Bureaucrats, Stupid

By KIM BELLARD

Universities are having a hard time lately. They’re beset with protests the like of which we’ve not seen since the Vietnam War days, with animated crowds, sit-ins, violent clashes with police or counter protesters, even storming of administration buildings. Classes and commencements have been cancelled. Presidents of some leading universities seemed unable to clearly denounce antisemitism or calls for genocide when asked to do so in Congressional hearings. Protesters walked out on Jerry Seinfeld’s commencement speech; for heaven’s sake – who walks out on Jerry Seinfeld?

Derek Thompson wrote a great piece for The Atlantic that tries to pinpoint the source problem: No One Knows What Universities Are For. The sub-title sums up his thesis: “Bureaucratic bloat has siphoned power away from instructors and researchers.”  As I was nodding along with most of his points, I found myself also thinking: he might as well be talking about healthcare.

Mr. Thompson starts by citing a satirical piece in The Washington Post, in which Gary Smith, an economics professor at Pomona College, argues that, based on historical trends in the growth of administration staff, the college would be best served by gradually eliminating faculty and even students. The college’s endowment could then be used just to pay the administrators.

“And just like that,” Professor Smith says, “the college would be rid of two nuisances at once. Administrators could do what administrators do — hold meetings, codify rules, debate policy, give and attend workshops, and organize social events — without having to deal with whiny students and grumpy professors.”

It’s humorous, and yet it’s not.

The growth in universities’ administrative staff is widespread. Mr. Thompson acknowledges: “As the modern college has become more complex and multifarious, there are simply more jobs to do.” But that’s not always helping universities’ missions. Political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg, who published The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters in 2014, told Mr. Thompson: “I often ask myself, What do these people actually do? I think they spend much of their day living in an alternate universe called Meeting World.”

Similarly, Professor Smith told Mr., Thompson it’s all about empire building; as Mr. Thompson describes it: “Administrators are emotionally and financially rewarded if they can hire more people beneath them, and those administrators, in time, will want to increase their own status by hiring more people underneath them. Before long, a human pyramid of bureaucrats has formed to take on jobs of dubious utility.”

All of these administrators add to the well-known problem of runaway college tuition inflation, but a more pernicious problem Mr. Thompson points to is that “it siphons power away from instructors and researchers at institutions that are—theoretically—dedicated to instruction and research.”

The result, Mr. Thompson concludes is “goal ambiguity.” Gabriel Rossman, a sociologist at UCLA, told him: “The modern university now has so many different jobs to do that it can be hard to tell what its priorities are.”  Mr. Thompson worries: “Any institution that finds itself promoting a thousand priorities at once may find it difficult to promote any one of them effectively. In a crisis, goal ambiguity may look like fecklessness or hypocrisy.”

So it is with healthcare.

Anyone who follows healthcare has seen some version of the chart that shows the growth in the number of administrators versus the number of physicians over the last 50 years; the former has skyrocketed, the latter has plodded along. One can – and I have in other forums – quibble over who is being counted as “administrators” in these charts, but the undeniable fact is that there are a huge number of people working in healthcare whose job isn’t, you know, to help patients.

It’s well documented that the U.S. healthcare system is by far the world’s most expensive healthcare system, and that we have, again by far, the highest percent spent on administrative expenses. Just as all the college administrators helps keep driving up college tuition, so do all those healthcare administrators keep healthcare spending high.

But, as Mr. Thompson worries about with universities, the bigger problem in healthcare is goal ambiguity.

Continue reading…

And Now For Something Completely Different

By KIM BELLARD

The most interesting story I read in the past week doesn’t come from the more usual worlds of health and/or technology, but from sports. It’s not even really news, since it was announced last fall; it’s just that it wasn’t until last week that a U.S. publication (The New York Times) reported on it. In a nutshell, a Paris football (a.k.a. soccer) club is not charging its fans admission during the current season.

Since last week I wrote about medical debt in the U.S. healthcare system, you might guess where this is going. The club is Paris FC. Last November it announced:

For the first time in history, Paris FC is offering free tickets for all home matches at the Stade Charléty, starting from the 11 November until the end of the 2023-2024 season from its Bastia reception, in a bid to offer a new and innovative vision of football by welcoming as many people as possible.

The policy includes the men’s second division team and the woman’s first division team. The NYT article clarifies that fans supporting the visiting team might be charged a “nominal” fee, and that hospitality suites still pay market rates.

Pierre Ferracci, Chairman of Paris FC, said: “We are proud to support this ambitious and pioneering project, which goes beyond the simple framework of sport in terms of the values it conveys. We want to bring people together around our club and our teams, while committing ourselves with strength and conviction. In a context of difficult purchasing power, we are confident that a club can be an ideal tool for bringing together people of goodwill and engage with societal issues.”

Fabrice Herrault, Paris FC’s general manager told NYT: “It was a kind of marketing strategy. We have to be different to stand out in Greater Paris. It was a good opportunity to talk about Paris F.C.” The club estimates it might cost them $1 million.

It seems to be working. The NYT reports:

Months later, most metrics suggest the gambit has worked. Crowds are up by more than a third. Games held at times appealing for school-age children have been the best attended, indicating that the club is succeeding in attracting a younger demographic.

The idea is not entirely de novo; last spring Fortuna Düsseldorf, a German second division football club, announced it would offer free admission for at least three matches this season, with the intent that eventually all home matches. “We open up football for all. We will have free entry for league games in this stadium,” Alexander Jobst, the club’s chief executive, said at the time. “We call it ‘Fortuna for all’ which can and will lead us to a successful future.”

In a NYT interview last spring, Mr. Jobst added: “We think it is completely new. We were trying to think about how we could do the soccer business completely different from before.”

I’m always a sucker for efforts to think about a business completely different than before.

Fortuna has now had two of its three free matches, and Mr. Jobst told NYT last week: “Our average attendance has gone from 27,000 to 33,000. Our merchandise sales are up by 50 percent. Our sponsorship revenue is up 50 percent. We have reached a record number of club members.”

Sure sounds like a success.

Continue reading…

Where’s Our Infrastructure Plan B?

By KMI BELLARD

I’ve been thinking a lot about infrastructure. In particular, what to do when it fails.

There was, of course, the tragic collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge. Watching the video – and, honestly, what were the odds there’d be video? — is like watching a disaster movie, the bridge crumbling slowly but unstoppably. The bridge had been around for almost fifty years, withstanding over 11 million vehicles crossing it each year. All it took to knock it down was one container ship.

Container ships passed under it every day of its existence; the Port of Baltimore is one of the busiest in the country. In retrospect, it seems almost inevitable that the bridge would collapse; certainly one of those ships had to hit it eventually. The thing is, it wasn’t inevitable; it was a reflection of the fact that the world the bridge was designed for is not our world.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg noted: “What we do know is a bridge like this one, completed in the 1970s, was simply not made to withstand a direct impact on a critical support pier from a vessel that weighs about 200 million pounds—orders of magnitude bigger than cargo ships that were in service in that region at the time that the bridge was first built,” 

When the bridge was designed in the early 1970’s, container ships had a capacity of around 3000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent foot units, a measure of shipping containers). The ship that hit the bridge was carrying nearly three times that amount – and there are container ships that can carry over 20,000 TEUs. The New York Times estimated that the force of the ship hitting the bridge was equivalent to a rocket launch.

“It’s at a scale of more energy than you can really get your mind around,” Ben Schafer, a professor of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins, told NYT.

Nii Attoh-Okine, a professor of engineering at the University of Maryland, added: “Depending on the size of the container ship, the bridge doesn’t have any chance,” but Sherif El-Tawil, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan, disagreed, claiming: “If this bridge had been designed to current standards, it would have survived.” The key feature missing were protective systems built around the bases of the bridge, as have been installed on some other bridges.

We shouldn’t expect that this was a freak occurrence, unlikely to be repeated. An analysis by The Wall Street Journal identified at least eight similar bridges also at risk, but pointed out what is always the problem with infrastructure: “The upgrades are expensive.”

Lest anyone forget, America’s latest infrastructure report card rated our overall infrastructure a “C-,” with bridges getting a “C” (in other words, other infrastructure is even worse).

What’s the plan?

——–

Then here’s an infrastructure story that threw me even more.

Continue reading…

Gen Z’s Mid-Life Crisis

By KIM BELLARD

These are not happy times in America.

Now, I’m not thinking about the increasing cultural wars, the endless political bickering, the troubles in the Med-East or Ukraine, the looming threat of climate crisis, or the omnipresent campaigning for the November 2024 elections, although all those play a part. I’m talking about quantifiable data, from the latest World Happiness Report. It found that America has slipped out of the top 20 countries for the first time, falling to 23rd – behind countries like Slovenia and the U.A.E. and barely ahead of Mexico or Uruguay.

Even worse, the fall in U.S. scores is primarily due to those under 30. They ranked 62nd, versus Americans over 60, who ranked 10th. A decade ago those were reversed. Americans aged 30-44 were ranked 42nd for their age group globally, while Americans between the ages 45-59 ranked 17th.

It’s not solely a U.S. phenomenon. Overall, young people are now the least happy, and the report comments: “This is a big change from 2006-10, when the young were happier than those in the midlife groups, and about as happy as those aged 60 and over. For the young, the happiness drop was about three-quarters of a point, and greater for females than males.”

“I have never seen such an extreme change,” John Helliwell, an economist and a co-author of the report, told The New York Times, referring to the drop in happiness among younger people. “This has all happened in the last 10 years, and it’s mainly in the English-language countries. There isn’t this drop in the world as a whole.”

Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, director of the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Center and an editor of the report, said in an interview with The Washington Post that the findings are concerning “because youth well-being and mental health is highly predictive of a whole host of subjective and objective indicators of quality of life as people age and go through the course of life.”

As a result, he emphasized: “in North America, and the U.S. in particular, youth now start lower than the adults in terms of well-being. And that’s very disconcerting, because essentially it means that they’re at the level of their midlife crisis today and obviously begs the question of what’s next for them?”

Gen Z is having a mid-life crisis.

Continue reading…

What Scares Healthcare Like EVs Scare Detroit

By KMI BELLARD

I’m thinking about electric vehicles (EVs)…and healthcare.

Now, mind you, I don’t own an EV. I’m not seriously thinking about getting one (although if I’m still driving in the 2030’s I expect it will be in one). To be honest, I’m not really all that interested in EVs. But I am interested in disruption, so when Robinson Meyer warned in The New York Times “China’s Electric Vehicles Are Going to Hit Detroit Like a Wrecking Ball,” he had my attention. And when on the same day I also read that Apple was cancelling its decade-long effort to build an EV, I was definitely paying attention.

Remember when 3 years ago GM’s CEO Mary Barra announced GM was planning for an “all electric future” by 2035, completely phasing out internal combustion engines? Remember how excited we were when the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022 with lots of credits and incentives for EVs? EVs sure seemed like our future.

Well, as Sam Becker wrote for the BBC: “Depending on how you look at it, the state of the US EV market is flourishing – or it’s stuck in neutral.” Ford, for example, had a great February, with huge increases in its EV and hybrid sales, but 90% of its sales remain conventional vehicles. Worse, it recently had to stop shipments of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck due to quality concerns. Frankly, EV is a money pit for Ford, costing it $4.7b last year – over $64,000 for every EV it sells.

GM also loses money on every EV it makes, although it hopes to make modest profits on them by 2025.  Ms. Barra is still hoping GM will be all electric by 2035, but now hedges: “We will adjust based on where customer demand is. We will be led by the customer.”

In more bad news for EVs, Rivian has had more layoffs due to slow sales, and Fisker announced it is stopping work on EVs for now. Tesla, on the other hand, claims a 38% increase in deliveries for 2023, but more recently its stock has been hit by a decline in sales in China. It shouldn’t be surprising.

As Mr. Meyer points out:

The biggest threat to the Big Three comes from a new crop of Chinese automakers, especially BYD, which specialize in producing plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles. BYD’s growth is astounding: It sold three million electrified vehicles last year, more than any other company, and it now has enough production capacity in China to manufacture four million cars a year…A deluge of electric vehicles is coming.

He’s blunt about the threat BYD poses: “BYD’s cars deliver great value at prices that beat anything coming out of the West.”

The Biden Administration is not just sitting idly.

Continue reading…

Amazon Can Still Surprise Me

By KIM BELLARD

It’s Cyber Monday, and you’ve probably been shopping this weekend. In-stores sales on Black Friday rose 2.2% this year, whereas online sakes rose almost 8%, to $9.8b – over half of which was via mobile shopping. Cyber Monday, though, is expected to outpace Black Friday’s online shopping, with an estimated $12b, 5.4% higher than last year. 

Lest we forget, Amazon’s Prime Day is even bigger than either Cyber Monday or Black Friday.  

All that shopping means lots of deliveries, and here’s where I got a surprise: according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, Amazon is now the leading (private) delivery service. The analysis found that Amazon has already shipped some 4.8 billion packages door-to-door, and expects to finish the year with some 5.9bn. UPS is expected to have some 5.3bn, while FedEx is close to 3bn – and – unlike Amazon’s numbers — both include deliveries where the U.S. Postal Service actually does the “last mile delivery.” 

Just a few years ago, WSJ reminds us, the idea that Amazon would deliver the most packages was considered “fantastical” by its competitors. “In all likelihood, the primary deliverers of e-commerce shipments for the foreseeable future will be UPS, the U.S. Postal Service and FedEx,” the then-CEO of Fed Ex said at the time. That quote didn’t age well.

Amazon’s growth is attributed in part to its contractor delivery program, whose 200,000 drivers (usually) wear Amazon uniforms and drive Amazon-branded vehicles, although they don’t actually work for Amazon, and a pandemic-driven doubling of its logistics network. WSJ reports: “Amazon has moved to regionalize its logistics network to reduce how far packages travel across the U.S. in an effort to get products to customers faster and improve profitability.”

It worked.

But I shouldn’t be surprised. Amazon usually gets good at what it tries. Take cloud computing.  Amazon Web Services (AWS) in its early years was considered something of a capital sink, but now not only is by far the market leader, with 32% market share (versus Azure’s 22%) but also generates close to 70% of Amazon’s profits. 

Prime, Amazon’s subscription service, now has some 200 million subscribers worldwide, some 167 million are in the U.S. Seventy-one percent of Amazon shoppers are Prime members, and its fees account for over 50% of all U.S. paid retail membership fees (Costco trails at under 10%). There’s some self-selection involved, but Prime members spend about three times as much on Amazon as nonprime members.

The world’s biggest online retailer. The biggest U.S. delivery service. The world’s biggest cloud computing service. The world’s second largest subscription service (watch out Netflix!).  It’s “only” the fifth largest company in the world by market capitalization, but don’t bet against it. 

I must admit, I’ve been a bit of a skeptic when it comes to Amazon’s interest in healthcare. I first wrote about them almost ten years ago, and over those years Amazon has continued to put its feet further into healthcare’s muddy waters.

Continue reading…