Bits and Pieces of Conclusions

…SO FAR

Trends in Health Care - Recap

I have said it over and over again: the healthcare market is one cow ready to be milked. Market Forces like an aging population, health care economics/politics (more and more laws regard the prevention of disease – preventative management), acute need for highly trained specialists and care takers, consumerism drive, increasing demand for portability, ease of use, targeted use, miniaturization and a confusing regulatory pathway shape it into a profitable yet difficult market.

As far device technology goes, the importance of interoperability cannot be stressed enough while the limitations of batteries drive innovation into specific target areas. Wireless is becoming ubiquitous under these considerations (e.g., Bluetooth Health Device Profile) and low energy consumption is also becoming an ardent issue with research into LPR (Low Power Radio) e.g. Zigbee Healthcare and Bluetooth LE. Flexible platforms systems and auto managed power technologies together with and increased RF traffic challenge the tasks of designers.

Promising Forecasts & False Suppositions

The forecasts in the ehealth medium keep pouring down and they put forward very promising scenarios. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions' survey found that 50% of consumers want a "personal monitoring device" to alert and guide them to improve their state of health or treat an already existing condition. A research done by PricewaterhouseCoopers places the market of mobile health applications at $7.7 billion with 40% of U.S. adults "willing to pay". In 2009, McKinsey's survey on mobile health estimated the market at $50 billion to $60 billion worldwide and $20 billion in the U.S. Parks Associates projects the wireless home health monitoring market will reach $4.4 billion in 2013.  Juniper Research places the market of remote patient monitoring via mobile network at $2 billion by 2014.

It cannot be denied that some of these reports are commissioned by various players looking to boost one aspect of the market or another. But what is there behind these numbers?

Clash of the Titans?

Continua Alliance’s main goal is to achieve certified interoperability. For an industry organization, it faces a lot obstruction from official standardization bodies. On top of that, as Gianluca mentioned here, the FDA poses some problems and delays the entire market of healthcare. Continua is playing on an international market and is therefore affected by measures taken in the US. What is happening on the European continent? A serious contender boosted by the European bodies has appeared promoting the same goals as the international industry based organization, Continua Alliance.

A Standard does not Secure Interoperability

Publishing and adopting a standard is by no means enough. Without test documentation, certification services, and a logo license agreement, interoperability is an illusion.

Industry vs. Formal Standardization Bodies

It appears that industry standards are not well regarded by formal standardization bodies. Then it makes all the sense in the world to have industry bodies like Continua Alliance to promulgate industry standards.

“ETSI is non-profit organization whose mission is to produce telecommunications standards for today and for the future. It is an open forum that unites over 800 Members from 53 countries and brings together manufacturers, network operators and service providers, administrations, research bodies and users. ETSI prides itself on being a market-driven organization; its Members, which represent all aspects of the industry, decide its work programme and allocate resources accordingly.”(ETSI 2000c)

However, in the quest for interoperability, European Standards committee tends to neglect the industry based standards. They consider them of lower quality. A standard developed by a formal standardization body has the advantage that it undergoes a certain process (apparently just the right one to give perfect quality) but the cherry on top is that governments may interfere and refer to it within a law. Thus, even though there is no quality guarantee besides word of mouth, the adaptation process is secured to some extent. Selection/adoption of any standard will entail, besides the actual technical details, a bit of drama over who can and will make more profit, irrespective if the environment is official or industry based.

The Law Suit around the Corner with IP

I have talked about the market and profit possibilities in my last post and this aspect of the whole standardization process is undoubtedly very important. The cost of a product is given by the size of silicon used or by the market gap it can fill out. Or at least that is how we usually look at the value for money of a product. It would be all hunky dory if it were so simple. Unfortunately, the danger with new technologies is that Intellectual Property rights can make the price of a product encompassing that particular technology to go way up. This is not even the major problem, because, if these rights are handled up front at the beginning, the cost can increase but will remain fixed. So no surprises! But what if chips start selling by the billions and greedy money makers claim rights in your product, in the technology you use? That’s known in this environment as the patent trolls and boy can they strip you down of a lot of pennies.