Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

Taking Down Dr. Oz

Posted on July 23, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I briefly mentioned Dr. Oz in my recent post about NY Med (and the healthcare social media firing). It’s clear to anyone watching the show that Dr. Oz is there for the celebrity factor and not for the actual medical work. He’s always “partnered” with another cardiologist who provides the actual patient care. Of course, I don’t really care too much that he’s on it or not. If it gives them a boost in ratings, good. I like the show.

However, I don’t know a single doctor that likes Dr. Oz and I know many of them who hate Dr. Oz. With this in mind, I found this interview with a medical student whose trying to “take down” Dr. Oz quite interesting. Here’s a short take on what this med student is doing:

Last year, Mazer brought a policy before the Medical Society of the State of New York—where Dr. Oz is licensed—requesting that they consider regulating the advice of famous physicians in the media. His idea: Treat health advice on TV in the same vein as expert testimony, which already has established guidelines for truthfulness.

Although, this quote is really powerful as well, “DR. OZ HAS SOMETHING LIKE 4-MILLION VIEWERS A DAY. THE AVERAGE PHYSICIAN DOESN’T SEE A MILLION PATIENTS IN THEIR LIFETIME.”

This is absolutely one of the problems with social media and other medium like television. The person with the biggest voice doesn’t always have the best information. In fact, sometimes the wrong information is the best way to grow an audience. What’s popular is not always what’s right.

Mazer in his interview highlights the biggest problem with some of the things that Dr. Oz says. The movement in healthcare has largely been towards evidence based medicine. I think that movement will only grow stronger as we can prove the effectiveness of care even better. However, many of the things on Dr. Oz’s show go contrary to evidence based medicine. This leaves the patient-doctor relationship at a cross roads when a patient chooses to follow something they’ve seen on TV versus the advice of the doctor (even if the doctor is on the side of evidence).

Dr. Oz aside, the same principle applies to other information patients might find on the internet. Many doctors would like to just brush this aside and say that patients should “trust” them since there’s bad information on the internet or there’s a bigger picture. That might work in the short term, but won’t last long term.

Long term doctors are going to have to take a collaborative approach with patients. As patients we just have to be careful that we don’t take it too far. Collaboration means that the patient needs to be collaborative as well.

The other way for doctors to battle the misinformation out there is to provide quality sources of trusted information. One way this will happen is on the physician website. Instead of being a glorified yellow page ad, the physician website is going to have to do more to engage and educate patients. That’s part of the opportunity and vision for Physia. It’s an exciting time to be in healthcare…if you like change.

What’s in the DNA of Your Mobile Health Startup?

Posted on I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Over the years I’ve learned a lot about startup companies. I love startup companies and I love working with people who can start with nothing and create something interesting. We need more of that in healthcare.

I recently realized how important it is that a health startup company realizes who they are and what’s in their DNA. As a startup company you don’t have the money or resources to be able to attack multiple markets, multiple product lines and see what works. So, it’s extremely important that you know who you are and don’t try and be something you’re not.

A great example of this is reflected in this questions: Are you an enterprise company or a slow and steady bootstrapper?

This question explains a totally different mentality when it comes to a startup company. Both of them can work, but these two types of startup companies will act very different. You shouldn’t mix the two or you’ll waste your limited resources in the process.

Let me explain a little better. A health startup company that is an “enterprise company” has to create an enterprise product. This means including enterprise features. This also means that you’ll need to prepare for the enterprise sales process. It’s much more involved and much more difficult. However, when you make a sale, they are for half a million dollars minimum. It’s a high risk, high reward way to approach building a product, but can work really well if you can solve an enterprise problem or are working in a space where the enterprise has allocated money. The enterprise approach takes quite a bit of up front capital to build the enterprise features and enterprise sales force required to be a success. While this has a high bar to participate it also means you won’t have nearly as many competitors.

On the other hand is the slow and steady bootstrapped approach. Instead of going after the big enterprise customers, this startup focuses on creating the simplest product possible that provides value to a company or even an individual. Instead of building an entire salesforce, they can rely on direct customer sales using social media, advertising, and other direct to consumer marketing techniques. They have to focus on user acquisition, user churn, and user referrals to grow the business. Instead of trying to build an enterprise product they focus on a very specific piece of value and deliver just that one thing. Over time this may eventually lead to an enterprise product and they may use the initial small customers to get them into the larger customers, but that’s not the focus of the growth of the business. That’s a long range plan.

What I’ve found is that many startups don’t know what type of company they are and so they waste a lot of resources trying both sides. This is a mistake that can be easily avoided. Figure out which type of company you want to be and build a culture around that approach. That doesn’t mean that you might not adjust course and try something different later. However, in the beginning it’s a mistake for most companies to try and be a direct to consumer product and an enterprise product at the same time.