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!!

Will The Fitbit Care Program Break New Ground?

Posted on September 21, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Wearables vendor Fitbit has launched a connected health program designed to help payers, employers and health systems prevent disease, improve wellness and manage diseases. The program is based on the technology Fitbit acquired when it acquired Twine Health.

As you’ll see, the program overview makes it sound as the Fitbit program is the greatest thing since sliced bread for health coaching and care management, I’m not so convinced, but judge for yourself.

Fitbit Care includes a mix of standard wearable features and coaching. Perhaps the most predictable option is built on standard Fitbit functions, which allow users to gather activity, sleep and heart rate data. However, unlike with individual use, users have the option to let the program harvest their health data and share it with care teams, which permits them to make personalized care recommendations.

Another option Fitbit Care offers is health coaching, in which the program offers participants personalized care plans and walks them through health challenges. Coaches communicate with them via in-communications, phone calls, and in-person meetings, targeting concerns like weight management, tobacco cessation, and management of chronic conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and depression. It also supports care for complex conditions such as COPD or congestive heart failure.

In addition, the program uses social tools such as private social groups and guided workouts. The idea here is to help participants make behavioral changes that support their health goals.

All this is supported by the new Fitbit Plus app, which improves patients’ communication capabilities and beefs up the device’s measurement capabilities. The Fitbit app allows users to integrate advanced health metrics such as blood glucose, blood pressure or medication adherence alongside data from Fitbit and other connected health devices.

The first customer to sign up for the program, Fitbit Care, is Humana, which will offer it as a coaching option to its employer group. This puts Fitbit Care at the fingertips of more than 5 million Humana members.

I have no doubt that employers and health systems would join Humana experimenting with wearables-enhanced programs like the one Fitbit is pitching. At least, in theory, the array of services sounds good.

On the other hand, to me, it’s notable that the description of Fitbit Care is light on the details when it comes to leveraging the patient-generated health data it captures. Yes, it’s definitely possible to get something out of continuous health data collection, but at least from the initial program description, the wearables maker isn’t doing anything terribly new.

Oh well. I guess Fitbit doesn’t have to do anything radical to offer something valuable to payers, employers and health plans. They continue to search for behavioral interventions that actually have an impact on disease management and wellness, but to my knowledge, they haven’t found any magic bullet. And while some of this sounds interesting, I see nothing to suggest that the Fitbit Care program can offer dramatic results either.

 

Latest Apple Watch to Cure Heart Disease (Yes, That’s the Sarcasm Font)

Posted on September 13, 2018 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.

By this point, I think that most people have seen the big announcement coming out of the Apple event that the Apple Watch 4 now has ECG and other heart monitoring capabilities built in. The watch will notify you if your heart rate is too low and instances of atrial fibrillation that it detects. Plus, all of this is done as an FDA cleared device (some are reporting that Apple got their FDA clearance in 30 days which is crazy fast for a medical device).

The response to this announcement has been quite interesting. Most aren’t surprised that Apple has been moving more and more into healthcare. Plus, there have been a lot of reports that have mistakenly called this the first consumer ECG which it’s not. AliveCor deserves that credit and I recently wrote about another consumer ECG which is just one of many that are coming. However, many are suggesting that the Apple Watch will be the first time that many younger, healthier people will be regularly using an ECG like this. That’s an interesting idea.

As you might have assumed by the title of this post, I think the Apple Watch announcement isn’t much ado about nothing, but it’s also not the announcement of “sliced bread” being invented either. Let’s dive into what this announcement really means for healthcare.

As I mentioned when I wrote about the other consumer ECG, there’s currently somewhat limited value in what can be done with a single lead ECG. So, it’s important to keep this Apple Watch announcement in the right perspective even though I’m sure most consumers won’t understand these details. One person even commented on how Apple created messaging that calls it an “intelligent health guardian” to confuse people while still avoiding liability:

Perception sells and Apple is as good at creating perception as anyone. Will many more people buy an Apple Watch if they perceive it as something that will help them monitor their health better? Definitely. However, there are some other consequences that many doctors are warning about when it comes to this type of tracking hitting the masses.

First up is Dr. Nick van Terheyden who provides a comparative example of why all this “testing” could lead to a lot of incidentloma’s (Nice word I assume he made up to describe false positives in health tests):

A nephrologist at Cricket Health, Carmen A. Peralta, chimed in with this perspective:

The problem with these devices is that it’s not in Apple’s best interest to truly educate a patient on what the device can and can’t do. If a single lead ECG like this was a reliable arbitrator of when to go to the ED or when to not go, then it would be extremely valuable. However, many doctors I’ve talked to are suggesting that a single lead ECG isn’t sufficient for this type of information. So, a false negative or a false positive from the Apple Watch can provide incorrect reassurance or unfortunate anxiety that is dangerous. Who’s going to communicate this information to the unsuspecting Apple Watch buyer? My guess is relatively no one.

Another doctor made this ironic observation when it comes to the false positives the Apple Watch will produce:

You can just imagine the Apple Watch template in an EHR system. I wonder if it will include an Apple Watch education sheet. Maybe the EHR could send that education sheet to their watch instead of the portal. Wishful thinking…I know.

Another doctor made this poignant observation about the announcement:

We could go on for a while about prevention versus diagnosis. However, I don’t think it’s really an either or proposition. Prevention is great, but detection and diagnosis are as well since we can’t prevent everything.

This MD/PhD student summed up where we’re at with these consumer health devices really well:

I agree completely. The Apple Watch is directionally good, but still far away from really making a significant impact on health and/or our healthcare sysetm.

Healthcare CIOs Focused On Patient Experience And Innovation

Posted on August 2, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Not long ago, 22 healthcare CIOs had a sit-down to discuss their CEOs’ top IT-related priorities. At the meeting, which took place during the 2018 Scottsdale Institute Annual Conference, the participants found that they were largely on the same page, according to researchers that followed the conversation.

Impact Advisors, which co-sponsored the research, found that improving patient experiences was priority number one. More than 80% of CIOs said patient engagement and better patient experiences were critical, and that deploying digital health strategies could get the job done.

The technologies they cited included patient-facing options like wearables, mobile apps and self-service tools. They also said they were looking at a number of provider-facing solutions which could streamline transitions of care and improve patient flow, including care coordination apps and tools and next-generation decision support technologies such as predictive analytics.

Another issue near the top of the list was controlling IT costs and/or increasing IT value, which was cited by more than 60% of CIOs at the meeting. They noted that in the past, their organizations had invested large amounts of money to purchase, implement and upgrade enterprise EHRs, in an effort to capture Meaningful Use incentive payments, but that things were different now.

Specifically, as their organizations are still recovering from such investments, CIOs said they now need to stretch their IT budgets, They also said that they were being asked to prove that their organization’s existing infrastructure investments, especially their enterprise EHR, continue to demonstrate value. Many said that they are under pressure to prove that IT spending keeps offering a defined return on investment.

Yet another important item on their to-do list was to foster innovation, which was cited by almost 60% of CIOs present. To address this need, some CIOs are launching pilots focused on machine learning and AI, while others are forming partnerships with large employers and influential tech firms. Others are looking into establishing dedicated innovation centers within their organization. Regardless of their approach, the CIOs said, innovation efforts will only work if innovation efforts are structured and governed in a way that helps them meet their organization’s broad strategic goals.

In addition, almost 60% said that they were expected to support their organization’s growth. The CIOs noted that given the constant changes in the industry, they needed to support initiatives such as expansion of service lines or building out new ones, as well as strategic partnerships and acquisitions.

Last, but by no means least, more than half of the CIOs said cybersecurity was important. On the one hand, the participants at the roundtable said, it’s important to be proactive in defending their organization. At the same time, they emphasized that defending their organization involves having the right policies, processes, governance structure and culture.

A Missed Opportunity For Telemedicine Vendors

Posted on June 29, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Today, most direct-to-consumer telemedicine companies operate on a very simple model.

You pay for a visit up front. You talk to the doctor via video, the doctor issues as a prescription if needed and you sign off. Thanks to the availability of e-prescribing options, it’s likely your medication will be waiting for you when you get to the pharmacy.

In my experience, the whole process often takes 45 minutes or less. This beats the heck out of having to wait in line at an urgent care center or worse, the emergency department.

But what about caring for chronic illnesses that can’t be managed by a drive-by virtual visit? Can telemedicine vendors play a role here? Maybe so.

We already know that combining telemedicine with remote monitoring devices can be very effective. In fact, some health systems have gone all-in on virtual chronic care management.

One fascinating example is the $54 million Mercy Virtual Care Center, which describes itself as a “hospital without beds.” The Center, which has a few hundred employees, monitors more than 3,800 remote patients; sponsors a telehealth stroke program offering neurology services to EDs nationwide; manages a team of virtual hospitalists caring for patient around-the-clock using virtual visit tools; and runs Mercy SafeWatch, which the Center says is the largest single-hub electronic intensive care unit in the U.S.

Another example of such hospital-based programs is Intermountain Healthcare’s ConnectCare Pro, which brings together 35 telehealth programs and more than 500 clinicians. Its purpose is to supplement existing staffers and offer specialized services in rural communities where some of the services aren’t available.

Given the success of programs that maintain complex patients remotely, I think a private telemedicine company managing chronic care services might work as well. While hospitals have financial reasons to keep such care in-house, I believe an outside vendor could profit in other ways. That’s especially the case given the emergence of wearable trackers and smartwatches, which are far cheaper than the specialized tools needed in the past.

One likely buyer for this service would be health plans.

I’ve heard some complain publicly that in essence, telemedicine coverage just encourages patients to access care more often, which defeats the purpose of using it to lower healthcare costs. However, if an outside vendor offered to manage patients with chronic illnesses, it might be a more attractive proposition.

After all, health plans are understandably wringing their hands over the staggering cost of maintaining the health of millions of diabetics. In 2017, for example, the average medical expense for people diagnosed with diabetes was about $16,750 per year, with $9,600 due to diabetes. If health plans could lay the cost off to a specialized telemedicine vendor, some real savings might be possible.

Of course, being a telemedicine-based chronic care management company would be far different than offering direct-to-consumer telemedicine services on an occasional basis. The vendor would have to have comprehensive health data management tools, an army of case managers, tight relationships with clinicians and a boatload of remote monitoring devices on hand. None of this would come cheaply.

Still, while I haven’t fully run the numbers, my guess is that this could be a sustainable business model. It’s worth a try.

Stanford Survey Generates Predictable Result: Doctors Want EHR Changes

Posted on June 11, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

I know you’re going to have trouble believing this, but many PCPs think EHRs need substantial changes.

Such is the unsurprising conclusion drawn by a survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Stanford Medicine. The poll, which took place between March 2 and March 27 of this year, surveyed 521 PCPs licensed to practice in the U.S. who have been using their current EHR system for at least one month.

The physicians were recruited via snail mail from the American Medical Association Masterfile. Figures for years in practice by gender, region and primary medical specialty were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population of PCPs in the U.S.

According to the survey, about two-thirds of PCPs think EHRs have generally improved care (63%). Two-thirds said they were at least somewhat satisfied with their current systems, though only 18% were very satisfied.

Meanwhile, a total of 34% were somewhat or very dissatisfied with their system, and 40% of PCPs said that EHRs create more challenges than benefits. Also, 49% of office-based PCPs reported that using an EHR detracts from their clinical effectiveness.  Forty-four percent of PCPs said that primary value of EHRs is data storage, while just 8% said that the biggest benefits were clinically-related.

To improve EHRs’ clinical value, it will take a lot of effort, with 51% saying they think EHRs need a complete overhaul.  Seventy-two percent of PCPs said that improving user interfaces could best address their needs in the immediate future.

Meanwhile, 67% of respondents said that solving interoperability problems should be the top priority for EHR development over the next decade, and 43% reported wanting improved predictive analytics capabilities.

Nearly all (99%) of PCPs said that EHR capabilities should include maintaining a high-quality record of patient data over time, followed closely by providing an intuitive user experience. Also, 88% said that providing clinical decision support at the moment of care was important, followed by identifying high-risk patients in their patient panel (86%).

When asked what EHR features they found most satisfying, they cited maintaining a high-quality patient record (73%), offering patients access to medical records (71%), sharing information with providers across the care continuum (65%) and supporting practice/revenue cycle management needs (60%).

However, EHRs still have a long way to go in offering other preferred capabilities, including changing and adapting in response to user feedback, improving patient-provider interaction, coordinating care for patients with complex conditions and engaging patients in prescribed care plans through mobile technologies. Vendors, you have been warned.

IBM Watson Health Layoffs Suggests AI Strategy Isn’t Working

Posted on June 6, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

IBM Watson Health is apparently making massive cuts to its staff, in a move suggesting that its healthcare AI isn’t working.

Watson Health leaders have argued that AI (which Watson Health leaders call “cognitive computing”) as the solution to many of the healthcare industry’s problems. IBM pitched Watson technology as a revolutionary tool which could get to the root of difficult medical problems.

Over time, however, it’s begun to look like this wasn’t going to happen, at least for the present. Among other high-profile goofs, IBM Watson has struggled with applying the supercomputing tech to oncology, which was one of its main goals.

Now IBM Watson Health has slashed up to 70% of its staff, according to sources speaking to The Register. The site reports that most of the layoffs are cutting staff within companies IBM has brought in an effort to build out its healthcare credentials. These include medical data company Truven, acquired in 2016 for $2.6 billion, medical imaging firm Merge, bought in 2015 for $1 billion and healthcare management firm Phytel, the site reports.

The cuts reflect a major strategic shift for Watson Health, which was one of IBM’s flagship divisions until recently. Having invested heavily in businesses that might have helped it dominate the health IT world, it now appears to be rethinking it’s all in approach.

That being said, no one has suggested that IBM Watson Health will disappear in a poof of smoke. IBM corporate leaders seem dedicated to an AI future. However, if this report is correct, Watson Health is being reorganized completely. Not too much of a surprise since given how hyped it was, it would have been almost impossible for it to live up to the hype.

To me, this suggests that rolling out healthcare AI tools might call for a completely different business model. Rather than applying brute force supercomputing tools to enterprise healthcare issues, it may be better to build from the ground up.

For example, consider Google’s approach to healthcare AI supercomputing. UK-based DeepMind is building relationships and products from the ground up. Working with the National Health Service DeepMind Health is bringing mobile tools and AI research to hospitals. Its mobile health tools include Streams, a secure mobile phone app which feeds critical medical information to doctors and hospitals.

In my opinion, the future of AI in healthcare will look more like the DeepMind model and less like IBM Watson’s top-down approach. Building out AI-based tools and platforms for physicians and nurses first just makes sense.

“Shadow” Devices Expose Networks To New Threats

Posted on June 4, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

A new report by security vendor Infoblox suggests that threats posed by “shadow” personal devices connected to healthcare networks are getting worse.

The study, which looks at healthcare organizations in the US, UK, Germany, and UAE, notes that the average organization has thousands of personal devices connected to their enterprise network. Including personal laptops, Kindles and mobile phones.

Employees from the US and the UK report using personal devices connected to their enterprise network for multiple activities, including social media use (39%), downloading apps (24%), games (13%) and films (7%), the report says.

It would be bad enough if these pastimes only consumed network resources and time, but the problem goes far beyond that. Use of these shadow devices can open up healthcare networks to nasty attacks. For example, social media is increasingly a vector of malware infection, where bad actors launch attacks successfully urging them to download unfamiliar files.

Health IT directors responding to the study also said there were a significant number of non-business IoT devices connected to their network including fitness trackers (49%), digital assistants like Amazon Alexa (47%), smart TVs (46%), smart kitchen devices such as connected kettles of microwaves (33%) and game consoles such as the Xbox or PlayStation (30%).

In many cases, exploits can take total control of these devices, with serious potential consequences. For example, one can turn a Samsung Smart TV into a live microphone and other smart TVs could be used to steal data and install unwanted apps.

Of course. IT directors aren’t standing around and ignoring these threats and have developed policies for dealing with them. But the report argues that their security policies for connected devices aren’t as effective as they think. For example, while 88% of the IT leaders surveyed said their security policy was either effective or very effective, employees didn’t even know it was in effect in many cases.

In addition, 85% of healthcare organizations have also increased their cybersecurity spending over the past year, and 12% of organizations have increased it by over 50%. Most HIT leaders appear to be focused on traditional solutions, including antivirus software (60%) and cybersecurity investments (57%). In addition, more than half of US healthcare IT professionals said their company invests in encryption software.

Also, about one-third of healthcare IT professionals said the company is investing in employee education (35%), email security solutions and threat intelligence (30%). One in five were investing in biometric solutions.

Ultimately, what this report makes clear is that health IT organizations need to reduce the number of unauthorized personal devices connected to their network. Nearly any other strategy just puts a band-aid on a gaping wound.

The State Of Healthcare Cybersecurity (Part 2)

Posted on May 22, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

In Part 1 of this series, which drew data from a study by Black Book Market Research, I described how insecure healthcare leaders felt their cybersecurity protections to be. I also noted that a large number of providers are struggling to recruit senior health IT experts, and as a result are basically winging it when it comes to breach protection.

Healthcare organizations’ data security problems run deeper than that, however, the study suggests. Not only are C-level execs finding security investments to be troublesome, IT managers responding to the survey admit that they, too, feel that they are not fully prepared to defend their institution’s data.

To begin with, 74% of surveyed CIOs admitted that they failed to evaluate the total cost of ownership before signing a deal with a cybersecurity solution or service provider, and 89% said they bought their cybersecurity solution to be compliant with security regs, and often, not necessarily to reduce security risks.

And the failure to protect critical information doesn’t stop there.  For example, 57% of IT managers said that they hadn’t taken stock of the full variety of cybersecurity solutions that currently exist, notably mobile security environments, intrusion detection, attack prevention, forensics and testing.

Also, many healthcare institutions seem to react only after they’ve been invaded. According to Black Book, 58% of hospitals didn’t select their current security vendor until after a data security incident, and 32% of healthcare organizations hadn’t scanned for vulnerabilities before an attack.

What’s more, 83% of healthcare organizations haven’t staged a cybersecurity drill which included an incident response process, which arguably leaves them particularly unprepared. Not only that, when an attack comes, some won’t catch it right away, as 29% said they don’t have an adequate solution to instantly detect and respond to cyberattacks.

Meanwhile, 16% of respondents reported being uncomfortable working with vendors that do a hard sell when they find security flaws and vulnerabilities. These insecurities aren’t surprising given that 60% of healthcare enterprises haven’t formally identified specific security objectives and requirements and integrated them into a strategic and tactical plan for breach prevention.

Given how unfocused many security plans are, it’s not surprising that 22% of provider organizations believe their cybersecurity position will worsen between now and the second quarter of 2019. Only 12% of hospitals and 9% of physician organizations reported that they expected to see cybersecurity improvements.

The bottom line here is that if the Black Book research is correct, many healthcare organizations are frighteningly unprepared to protect their data, much less survive a serious attack relatively unscathed. For everyone’s sake, let’s hope that providers wise up to the need for strategic, substantial investments in security technology and staff.

Why You Shouldn’t Take Calculated Risks with Security

Posted on May 9, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Erin Gilmer (@GilmerHealthLaw).

Calculated risks are often lauded in innovation.  However, with increasing security breaches in the tech industry, it is time to reassess the calculated risks companies take in healthcare.

Time and again, I have advised technology companies and medical practices to invest in security and yet I am often met with resistance, a culture of calculated risk prevails.  To these companies and practices, this risk may make sense to them in the short term. Resources are often limited and so they often believe that they needn’t spend the time and money in security.  However, the notion that a company or a practice can take this chance is ill advised.

As a recent study conducted by HIMSS (and reviewed by Ann Zieger here) warns, “significant security incidents are projected to continue to grow in number, complexity and impact.” Thus in taking the calculated risk not to invest in security, companies and practices are creating greater risk for in the long run, one that comes with severe consequences.

As we have seen outside of healthcare, even “simple” breaches of user names and passwords as happened to Under Armour’s MyFitnessPal app, become relatively important use cases as examples of the impact a security breach can have. While healthcare companies typically think of this in terms of HIPAA compliance and oversight by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences reach far wider.  Beyond the fines or even jail time that the OCR can impose, what these current breaches show us is how easy it is for the public to lose trust in an entity.  For a technology company, this means losing valuation which could signal a death knell for a startup. For a practice, this may mean losing patients.  For any entity, it will likely result in substantial legal fees.

Why take the risk not to invest in security? A company may think they are saving time and money up front and the likelihood of a breach or security incident is low. But in the long run, the risk is too great – no company wants to end up with their name splashed across the headlines, spending more money on legal fees, scrambling to notify those whose information has been breached, and rebuilding lost trust.  The short term gain of saving resources is not worth this risk.

The best thing a company or practice can do to get started is to run a detailed risk assessment. This is already required under HIPAA but is not always made a priority.  As the HIMSS report also discussed, there is no one standard for risk assessment and often the OCR is flexible knowing entities may be different sizes and have different resource. While encryption standards and network security should remain a high priority with constant monitoring, there are a few standard aspects of risk assessment including:

  • Identifying information (in either physical or electronic format) that may be at risk including where it is and whether the entity created, received, and/or is storing it;
  • Categorizing the risk of each type of information in terms of high, medium, or low risk and the impact a breach would have on this information;
  • Identifying who has access to the information;
  • Developing backup systems in case information is lost, unavailable, or stolen; and
  • Assessing incidence response plans.

Additionally, it is important to ensure proper training of all staff members on HIPAA policies and procedures including roles and responsibilities, which should be detailed and kept up to date in the office.

This is merely a start and should not be the end of the security measures companies and practices take to ensure they do not become the next use case. When discussing a recent $3.5 million settlement, OCR Director Roger Severino recently emphasized that, “there is no substitute for an enterprise-wide risk analysis for a covered entity.” Further, he stressed that “Covered entities must take a thorough look at their internal policies and procedures to ensure they are protecting their patients’ health information in accordance with the law.”

Though this may seem rudimentary, healthcare companies and medical practices are still not following simple steps to address security and are taking the calculated risk not to – which will likely be at their own peril.

About Erin Gilmer
Erin Gilmer is a health law and policy attorney and patient advocate. She writes about a range of issues on different forums including technology, disability, social justice, law, and social determinants of health. She can be found on twitter @GilmerHealthLaw or on her blog at www.healthasahumanright.wordpress.com.

Privacy Fears May Be Holding Back Digital Therapeutics Adoption

Posted on May 3, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Consumers were already afraid that their providers might not be able to protect the privacy of their health data. Given the daily news coverage of large data breaches and since the Facebook data scandal blew up, consumers may be even less likely try out new digital health approaches.

For example, a new study by innovation consultancy Enspektos has concluded that patients may be afraid to adopt digital therapeutics options. Many fear that the data might be compromised or the technology may subject them to unwanted personal surveillance.

Without a doubt, digital therapeutics could have a great future. Possibilities include technologies such as prescription drugs with embedded sensors tracking medication compliance, as well as mobile apps that could potentially replace drugs. However, consumers’ appetite for such innovations may be diminishing as consumer fears over data privacy grow.

The research, which was done in collaboration with Savvy Cooperative, found that one-third of respondents fear that such devices will be used to track their behavior in invasive ways or that the data might be sold to a third party without the permission. As the research authors note, it’s hard to argue that the Facebook affair has ratcheted up these concerns.

Other research by Enspektos includes some related points:

  • Machine-aided diagnosis is growing as AI, wearables and data analytics are combined to predict and treat diseases
  • The deployment of end-to-end digital services is increasing as healthcare organizations work to create comprehensive platforms that embrace a wide range of conditions

It’s worth noting that It’s not just consumers who are worried about new forms of hacker intrusions. Industry CIOs have been fretting as it’s become more common for cybercriminals to attack healthcare organizations specifically. In fact, just last month Symantec identified a group known as Orangeworm that is breaking into x-ray, MRI and other medical equipment.

If groups like Orangeworm have begun to attack medical devices — something cybersecurity experts have predicted for years — we’re looking at a new phase in the battle to protect hospital devices and data. If one cybercriminal decides to focus on healthcare specifically, it’s likely that others will as well.

It’s bad enough that people are worried about the downsides of digital therapeutics. If they really knew how insecure their overall medical data could be going forward, they might be afraid to even sign in to their portal again.