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!!

Google And Fitbit Partner On Wearables Data Options

Posted on May 7, 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.

Fitbit and Google have announced plans to work together, in a deal intended to “transform the future of digital health and wearables.” While the notion of transforming digital health is hyperbole even for companies the size of Google and Fitbit, the pairing does have plenty of potential.

In a nutshell, Fitbit and Google expect to take on both consumer and enterprise health projects that integrate data from EMRs, wearables and other sources of patient information together. Given the players involved, it’s hard to doubt that at least something neat will emerge from their union.

Among the first things the pair plans to use Google’s new Cloud Healthcare API to connect Fitbit data with EMRs. Of course, readers will know that it’s one thing to say this and another to actually do it, but gross oversimplifications aside, the idea is worth pursuing.

Also, using services such as those offered by Twine Health– a recent Fitbit acquisition — the two companies will work to better manage chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. Twine offers a connected health platform which leverages Fitbit data to offer customized health coaching.

Of course, as part of the deal Fitbit is moving to the Google Cloud Platform, which will supply the expected cloud services and engineering support.

The two say that moving to the Cloud Platform will offer Fitbit advanced security capabilities which will help speed up the growth of Fitbit Health Solutions business. They also expect to make inroads in population health analysis. For its part, Google also notes that it will bring its AI, machine learning capabilities and predictive analytics algorithms to the table.

It might be worth a small caution here. Google makes a point of saying it is “committed” to meeting HIPAA standards, and that most Google Cloud products do already. That “most” qualifier would make me a little bit nervous as a provider, but I know, why worry about these niceties when big deals are afoot. However, fair warning that when someone says general comments like this about meeting HIPAA standards, it probably means they already employ high security standards which are likely better than HIPAA. However, it also means that they probably don’t comply with HIPAA since HIPAA is about more than security and requires a contractual relationship between provider and business associate and the associated liability of being a business associate.

Anyway, to round out all of this good stuff, Fitbit and Google said they expect to “innovate and transform” the future of wearables, pairing Fitbit’s brand, community, data and high-profile devices with Google’s extreme data management and cloud capabilities.

You know folks, it’s not that I don’t think this is interesting. I wouldn’t be writing about if I didn’t. But I do think it’s worth pointing out how little this news announcement says, really.

Yes, I realize that when partnerships begin, they are by definition all big ideas and plans. But when giants like Google, much less Fitbit, have to fall back on words like innovate and transform (yawn!), the whole thing is still pretty speculative. Just sayin’.

FDA Announces Precertification Program For Digital Health Tools

Posted on October 5, 2017 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.

The FDA has recruited some the world’s top technology and medical companies to help it pilot test a program under which digital health software could be marketed without going through the through the agency’s entire certification process.

The participants, which include Apple, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Samsung and Roche, will give the agency access to the measures they’re using to develop, test and maintain their software, and also how they collect post-market data.

Once armed with this information, the FDA will leverage it to determine the key metrics and performance indicators it uses to see if digital health software meets its quality standards.

Companies that meet these new standards could become pre-certified, a status which grants them a far easier path to certification than in the past. This represents a broad shift in the FDA’s regulatory philosophy, “looking first at the software developer digital health technology developer, not the product,” according to a report previously released by the agency.

If the pilot works as planned, the FDA is considering making some significant changes to the certification process. If their processes pass muster, pre-certified companies may be allowed to submit less information to the FDA than they currently must before marketing a new digital health tool.  The agency is also considering the more radical step of allowing pre-certified companies to avoid submitting a product for premarket review in some cases. (It’s worth noting that these rules would apply to lower-risk settings.)

The prospect of pre-certifying companies does raise some concerns. In truth, the argument could be made that digital health software should be regulated more tightly, not less. In particular, the mobile healthcare world is still something of a lawless frontier, with very few apps facing privacy, security or accuracy oversight.

The fact is, it’s little wonder that physicians aren’t comfortable using mobile health app data given how loosely it can be constructed at times, not to mention the reality that it might not even measure basic vital signs reliably.

It’s not that the healthcare industry isn’t aware of these issues. about a year ago, a group of healthcare organizations including HIMSS, the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association came together to develop a framework of principles dressing app quality. Still, that’s far short of establishing a certification body.

On the other hand, the FDA does have a point when it notes that a pre-certification program could make it easier for useful digital health tools to reach the marketplace. Assuming the program is constructed well, it seems to me that this is a good idea.

True, it’s pretty unusual to see the FDA loosen up its certification process – a fairly progressive move for a stodgy agency – while the industry fails to self-regulate, but it’s a welcome change of style. I guess digital health really is changing things up.

 

The Required Shift in How Patients View Wearables

Posted on September 27, 2016 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.

This post is sponsored by Samsung Business. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

We’ve all seen the explosive growth that’s occurred in the wearables market. The most extraordinary part of the wearables explosion is that the majority of wearables growth has been in the healthcare space. The problem we now see in healthcare is that most people don’t look at wearables as a disease management tool as much as they see them as lifestyle tools. This was described really well by Megan Williams on the Samsung Insights blog:

Perhaps the most challenging part of meeting that desire [Physician Access to Patients’ Lives and Health] is the fact that patients mostly view wearables as an aid in lifestyle improvement instead of disease management. The task of helping patients understand that wearables are about much more than weight loss will fall squarely on the shoulders of providers.

Patients have traditionally shown a preference for lifestyle apps including fitness, nutrition and heart rate aids, and have been much slower to adopt disease management tools, even as chronic disease remains a burden on healthcare as a whole. Encouraging the use of a broader range of wearables, digital tools and apps will be a challenge for any provider.

Changing habits and perceptions is always a challenge. However, it’s also a great opportunity.

No one would argue that today’s wearables are more than novelty items that may have some impact on your lifestyle (fitness, nutrition, etc). That’s largely because the initial wearables were designed around those retail areas of the market. It’s much easier to create a retail wearable device than to create a disease management focused healthcare device.

As the healthcare wearables market matures so will patients expectations around the benefits they can receive from those wearables. I think there are two main keys to development of wearables as true healthcare devices: Depth of Tracking and Connection to Providers.

Depth of Tracking
I’ve argued for a while now that all the various fitness trackers were not clinically relevant. I still believe that today, but I also believe that wearables like the various fitness trackers will start tracking us in ways that are clinically relevant. That just takes a lot longer to develop.

Whether it’s new trackers that screen for sleep apnea or ECGs that monitor our heart, we’re seeing more and more wearable devices monitoring data that’s more clinically relevant than the number of steps you’ve taken. This trend will continue. As wearables more deeply track various parts of the human body, the opportunities to understand your health and improve your health will follow along with it. This will provide doctors the impetus to request access to your wearable data.

The deep data these wearables will provide will challenge the tried and true beliefs healthcare holds so dearly today. That can be scary for some, but is also very exciting.

Connection to Providers
While wearables will provide the data, we’ll still want to consult a healthcare provider to understand the data and to create a plan of action based on that data. At least in the foreseeable future, our health will depend on collaboration with healthcare providers as opposed to a replacement of healthcare providers. This will be particularly true as the type of data our wearables collect gets more complicated. Understanding your step chart is quite different than understanding your ECG.

In order to facilitate this collaboration, our wearables will have to be connected to our care providers. Note that I said care providers and not doctors. In some cases it might be our doctor, but in other cases it could be a nurse, care manager, social worker, or some other care provider. I’m hopeful that we eventually reach the point of a true care team that collaborates on our health. That’s a far cry from where most of our healthcare is today, but that is the hope.

If we can solve these two wearable challenges: Deeper Data and Connected Providers, then we’ll be well on our way to changing how patients view wearables. This shift won’t happen over night, but I believe it will happen a lot quicker than most people imagine.

For more content like this, follow Samsung on Insights, Twitter, LinkedIn , YouTube and SlideShare.

Is Healthcare Overhead Holding Back New #DigitalHealth Solutions?

Posted on May 18, 2016 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.

Earlier this year I wrote an article that questioned whether the Fitbit was really a digital health solution. I essentially came to the conclusion that Fitbit’s health data wasn’t clinically relevant and so that’s why we didn’t see it really impacting healthcare as we know it.

While Fitbit’s data may not be clinically relevant, Fitbit has still gone on to be an extremely successful wearable technology solution for consumers. For some reason we enjoy tracking our steps whether it really improves our health or not. Of course, maybe they’re also riding our own misconception that tracking steps improves health. Regardless, they’ve been extremely successful and haven’t had to prove that they actually do anything to move the needle in healthcare.

I wonder if this is the model that we’ll see happen most with digital health solutions. Instead of trying to actually take part in the ruthless, brutal, and complex healthcare infrastructure, I expect we’ll see most digital health solutions work on the outside.

Think about the overhead that comes with becoming FDA cleared or the overhead that comes with proving to a hospital that your solution really does improve patients’ health. That’s a lot of work compared with just creating the illusion of health and selling it directly to consumers. Maybe the illusion will play out as reality or maybe it will not. From a company’s point of view, all you have to do is keep the illusion in play and you can be successful.

No doubt this later strategy appeals to the startup culture that’s been created in the US. There’s so little that’s “lean startup” of MVP (minimum viable product) in healthcare. Most people in healthcare are afraid of anything that’s not mature. Healthcare regulations certainly discriminate against experimentation and show bias to mature technologies.

The only case that really can be made to entrepreneurs who want to pursue the harder path of proving their technologies is that once they’ve proved it they have a great defense against competitors who haven’t gone to that effort. That’s a powerful incentive, but not one that most will appreciated when starting a digital health startup company.

My gut tells me that the complexities of healthcare are holding many innovations from happening in healthcare. That’s unfortunate.

Aggregate Fitness Tracker Data is More Valuable than Individual Results?

Posted on March 30, 2016 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.

A recent New York Times article made an interesting conclusion about the value of fitness tracker data:

Ultimately, it is those aggregate numbers that offer the most exciting possibilities: The collective data stream from our devices amounts to by far the largest and most comprehensive observational health trial ever conducted. We have the data; now we just need to figure out what it means.

As a preface to this discussion, it’s worth letting you take a minute to read my article about the clinical relevance of FitBit data (or lack thereof). For those who don’t click over, I argue that doctors don’t care about FitBit (and other Fitness Tracker) data because it’s not clinically relevant. However, new sensors are on their way that will be clinically relevant.

While I fundamentally believe that current FitBit data isn’t that interesting to the individual, it’s worth considering if the aggregate FitBit data is going to provide some clinical and health insights. My reaction is that the aggregate FitBit data is likely to provide a much larger benefit than the individual data. Although, that’s not saying too much since I just said that I didn’t think it was that clinically relevant for an individual.

I do think the aggregate data will tell an interesting story about the population as a whole. If we get enough data (and this will likely require all fitness tracking companies to work together), then we could look at some interesting trends that happen across various regions and shifts in activity over time.

One of the big complaints about value based reimbursement efforts is that there’s no baseline that will allow a doctor to say that their patient population is sicker than another doctor’s population. However, under this new model, we’re planning to reimburse them based on how well they keep the population healthy. We can all see how this isn’t fair and could lead to doctors only working with the most healthy patients.

Could a baseline of personal health tracking data (yes, it will likely need to be more than just step trackers) allow us to understand in a really detailed way the health or sickness of a physician’s patient population?

Yes, this all gets quite messy very quickly. However, it also gets quite exciting. Could enough data help us understand what doctors have said for years, “My patients are more sick!”? I think it could. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what we have today.

Of course, the solutions to actually improving the health of patients is a whole other challenge. However, understanding the health of a population as compared to other populations and how their health changes over time is going to be very valuable to the future of healthcare as we know it.

The Power of WeChat for Chinese Health Trackers

Posted on March 24, 2016 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’ve been meaning to write this post ever since CES at the start of this year. It was one of the most impressive and interesting things I saw at CES. However, it requires a real international perspective to understand the impact of the story. Hopefully I can flesh it out for you.

While at CES I ran into a company called Lifesense (All in Chinese). I almost didn’t stop at their booth because their booth was in Chinese, but I did recognize the pictures they had and the guy at the booth came out and said hi. I try to respectful so I stopped and talked for a minute.

At first appearance I just thought they were one of the hundreds of copy cat companies I’d seen all over the Fitness area of CES. They had a fitness tracker, a scale, a blood pressure cuff, etc. I guess in some ways they were/are a copy cat company since none of those things made them special (at least nothing I could see). However, it turned out that there was more than meets the eye and there was a reason their booth and website were in Chinese.

Turns out that Lifesense was only in China. They had no US presence (although, he thought that one day they might). As someone who’s always curious I wondered how well their health tracking products had done in China. He then recounted to me that they were lucky to be major partners with WeChat and so they’d had tremendous success in the Chinese market.

This is where I got most interested. For those not familiar with WeChat, it’s the go to IM/SMS/Facebook Messenger/SnapChat/Kik/Whatsapp/etc app for China. Everyone in China is pretty much on WeChat. Plus, unlike the companies that I just listed WeChat also has a built in commerce platform and engine for running third party apps. It’s amazing to think that an IM platform could be so powerful, but WeChat has shown that it can be. You literally can order Pizza or an Uber from within WeChat.

With that in mind, building a health tracking platform on WeChat solves so many of the challenges that US based fitness tracking applications have going against them. Take for example the experience with Fitbit. You can connect with your friends and “compete” against them to see who takes the most steps. However, it can be a pain to get all of your friends on the Fitbit platform so you can compete. Plus, this doesn’t even take into account that your friend has to have a Fitbit device.

Turns out that since Lifesense has built their Fitness tracking on WeChat, they can already connect you to all your other friends that are tracking their fitness with no work on your part. That feature literally just comes built in with WeChat. That’s so incredibly powerful since the social element to health is so important.

The problem in the US is that we don’t have a WeChat. There are a lot of platforms that are trying to do what WeChat’s done in China in the US, but they still have a long ways to go. Plus, it’s hard to imagine them ever becoming the dominant force that WeChat is in China.

As usual, I think there’s lots that we can learn from other countries. I think that’s the case with simple integrations like WeChat that open up all sorts of easy doors to improving health.

Here are some screenshots of the LifeSense app in WeChat for those that are interested to see how the app looks on top of WeChat:

HIMSS 2016 Moved from Mobility to Devices

Posted on March 9, 2016 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.

Thinking back on a week at the HIMSS Annual Conference, I think it’s fair to say that the industry has moved beyond the smart phone and moved on to new devices. That’s not to say that mobile doesn’t matter, but mobility has just become a feature of most software the same way we talk about a cloud application. No one buys cloud, but they might look at whether the application is a cloud application. The same is true for mobility. You don’t buy mobility, but you might want to know if the application is available on mobile devices.

With that said, there are still many that use the term mobile health to describe any devices that could be used in your health. That’s a pretty broad definition since it could include apps on your smartphone, the watch on your wrist, the Fitbit in your pocket, or some other sort of sensor attached to your body in some way. This leaves off ingestibles and implantables which I guess could apply to this broad definition of mobile health as well.

I believe 2016 was a breakout year for consumer health device companies at HIMSS. While in previous years I might see a number of these consumer health device companies at CES, very few of them really had any presence at HIMSS. HIMSS 2016 had a lot of these device manufacturers with much larger presences. This includes large companies like Philips (who killed it on the #HIMSS16 hashtag) and Qualcomm (of course they acquired CapsuleTech which has always had a good presence at HIMSS), but also a large smattering of smaller device companies scattered throughout the HIMSS 2016 exhibit hall floor.

I can’t say that I saw anything new from these companies, but HIMSS isn’t really the place for them to launch new products. Most of these companies save product launches for other events like CES or Mobile World Congress. Instead, their presence at HIMSS shows an interesting evolution in the journey of these generally consumer focused health devices. HIMSS is about the healthcare enterprise. What’s still not clear to me is how many of these consumer health devices can find a foothold in the enterprise healthcare world. However, it’s notable that so many are trying.

The Fitness Wearable Nobody Knows About

Posted on January 27, 2016 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 ran across a great article from Techcrunch that looked at the top 3 wearable vendors and they pointed out that most of us have probably never heard of the #3 wearable on that list. For those following along at home, the top 3 are Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Xiamoi Mi Band.

Everyone in the US has heard about Fitbit and the Apple Watch. However, my guess is that few in the US know about the Xiaomi Mi Band since 97% of its sales are in China. Here’s a look at the breakdown of wearable market share per the Techcrunch article linked above:

According to IDC, market leader Fitbit shipped 4.7 million wearable units in the third quarter, taking a 22.2 percent market share. Apple shipped 3.9 million units, for a 18.6 percent market share, while Xiaomi shipped 3.7 million units, or 17.4 percent of the market.

For all intents and purposes, the Xiaomi product line is very similar to the Fitbit product line. Some might even call it a knock off. The Mi Band originally started with steps, hours of sleep, and calories burned. Now the Mi Band Pulse also does heart rate. Have we heard this story before?

It’s really easy in our US centric minds to forget about what else is happening around the world. That’s particularly true of China which is one of the fastest growing wearable markets out there. I saw that first hand when I met all these Chinese digital health companies at CES. What will be interesting to watch is if and when some of these successful Chinese companies come to the US. We’ll see how they do.

Fitbit Lawsuit and Lumosity Settlement Shine Important Light on Making Health Claims

Posted on January 13, 2016 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.

2 big announcements came out around CES that shined a light on all the pomp and circumstance that you hear at a show like CES and the Digital Health Summit. The first was Lumosity’s $2 million in refunds to settle Federal charges with the FTC for deceptive marketing practices.

The FTC commented:

“Lumosity preyed on consumers’ fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer’s disease,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But Lumosity simply did not have the science to back up its ads.”

Lumosity commented:

The company said in a statement that the FTC’s charges and the resulting settlement stem from “marketing language that has been discontinued” and that the company’s focus “has not and will not change.”

In related news was the lawsuit against Fitbit’s wrist activity tracker and its ability to track heart rates. Here’s an excerpt as reported by CBS (or you can read the full complaint):

The lawsuit filed in federal court this week claims that the wrist-based activity tracker is consistently misrecording users’ heart rates by a “very significant margin.” It also takes aim at Fitbit commercials with slogans like “Every Beat Counts” and “Know Your Heart.”

“Far from ‘counting every beat,’ the PurePulse Trackers do not and cannot consistently and accurately record wearers’ heart rates during the intense physical activity for which Fitbit expressly markets them,” the lawsuit states.

Here’s Fitbit’s response:

Fitbit stands behind our heart rate technology and strongly disagrees with the statements made in the complaint and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Some of you might have read my article where I wrote that Fitbit’s data isn’t clinically relevant. The challenge is that they give the impression that it is clinically relevant. It’s a fine line you walk when you don’t want to take the time and spend the money to do the clinical studies and FDA clearance that’s needed to make clinical claims. Anecdotal results isn’t enough. Plus, the media can take and make whatever claims they want even if you are very careful with your words.

This discussion is going to become really important as clinically relevant devices that have gone through the clinical studies and can make the claims start to hit the market. It just takes years for these studies to see the light of day. Many would argue that it’s not fast enough. They’re right. It takes forever, but you’re walking a fine line in the claims you make while you wait for the results to be published.

While we wait, Doctors will continue to use and share these various digital health solutions and offer their first hand experience using the products. It’s just a really hard balancing act when the company starts to promote these stories.

Watch for this discussion to really come into focus in 2016. Count on legislation which clarifies what’s acceptable and what’s not as well.

Is Fitbit a Digital Health Solution?

Posted on January 6, 2016 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.

As I’ve been making the rounds of Digital Health at CES (technically the show officially starts today), I’ve run into an extraordinary amount of digital health sensors and tracking devices. Some of them are me too copycats of the already flooded fitness trackers. Others are doing really incredible stuff around ecg, muscle mass, respiratory, heart rate, and much more.

One conversation that I’ve had multiple times is that Fitbit and Fitness trackers like it really aren’t a digital health solution. This isn’t really said as a knock to Fitbit. Almost always this statement is proceeded by a comment about how Fitbit has done some really great things. However, the question really revolves around whether Fitbit is a healthcare application or whether it’s just a fun consumer device.

There’s no argument that Fitbit has been extremely successful. It’s also created mainstream interest in tracking your health. As a consumer application it’s been a big hit. The numbers don’t lie. However, many would equate what it’s accomplished in healthcare to something like the Wii Fit as opposed to something that impacts clinical care like a medical device. It’s more of a game that provides some health benefits than it is a clinical device. I even heard one person take it as far as to compare it to running shoes. If you did a study, running shoes probably improve the health of many people since it makes it easier to exercise. Does that make it a health solution?

Like I said, I don’t think anyone is arguing that what Fitbit is doing is bad. I also can’t remember Fitbit ever really claiming to influence clinical care. It’s the rest of the world that’s drawing that conclusion for them. Countless are the number of articles that talk about a patient sharing their Fitbit data with their doctor.

In response to those articles doctors have generally responded, why do I care about their Fitbit data? I think the reason doctors react this way is because the Fitbit data is limited and really doesn’t affect the clinical care for most people. Maybe there’s some isolated cases, but for the majority of Americans it wouldn’t change the care they receive.

While this is true for Fitbit, there is a wave of other tracking devices that could (and I believe will) impact clinical care. It’s easy to see how a continuous ecg monitor that’s FDA cleared (ie. Doctors trust the data) could impact clinical care. This is actually true clinical data that doctors will care about seeing.

At this point I think it’s true that majority of doctors don’t want to get your Fitbit data. It’s not clinically relevant. However, that’s going to change rapidly as health sensors continue to evolve. Maybe Fitbit will find some clinical relevancy in the data they produce. If not, a wide variety of other vendors are going to create clinically relevant data that doctors will not only want in their EHR, but they’re going to demand it.

The only question I have now is, should we be building the highways for that data now so that we can easily turn on these new sources of clinically relevant data?

Side Note: I’ll be doing a Digital Health video blab from CES 2016 if you’d like to join.