Health care is a personal issue that has become wholly public--as the national debate over reforming our system makes painfully clear. But what's often lost in the gun-toting Town Hall debates about the issue is a clear vision about how medicine could work in the future. In this feature article, frog design uses its people-centered design discipline to show how elegant health and life science technology solutions will one day become a natural part of our behavior and lifestyle. What you see here is the result of frog's ongoing collaboration with health-care providers, insurers, employers, consumers, governments, and technology companies. You can join the conversation too: this Thursday October 8 at noon eastern, frog will hold a discussion about the future of health care on Twitter (follow the hash tag #futureofhealthcare). You can also download a .pdf version of this article from the last page. - Noah Robischon, editor.
Susan's life is full. That's a nice way of saying that she is frenetically, overwhelmingly busy--too busy, she sometimes jokes, to be healthy. She has a husband and two small children, a full-time job, and aging parents who rely on her for support. She also has two younger brothers and a community of friends both near and far that she keeps in touch with mostly online.
At 39, Susan finds herself at the center of managing the health and wellness of her young family, her parents, and herself. While numerous tools on the market can help Susan do this, few are connected, the information they provide is confusing, and they're often so difficult to use that they cost her time--time she doesn't have.
Susan is not alone. Too many of us are too busy to be healthy--not because we lack awareness. We know what we need to do. It's finding the time to do it that's the problem. In an age of 24/7 connectivity that requires our near-constant vigilance, time feels more pressed than ever. Yet, it may be that the very technology allowing us this around-the-clock connection can transform how we manage our health.
Fortunately, we are at an inflection point in history both from a policy and technological perspective. Advances in wirelessly connected devices and social networking platforms will make the job of a "family health manager" much easier, more meaningful, and more effective.
In this outlook, we illustrate trends in networked devices and social networking platforms to project a future where Susan can tend to her family's varying health needs while still having time for herself.
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 25 Total
October 6, 2009 at 11:32am by Kandy White
I find it interesting the article begins with a derogatory statement about Town Hall attendees; that because of their belief they are incompetent. Why is a contrary opinion wrong? Why isn't just different an alternative; that is your solution is not for them?
Next, it appears this is a paid advertisement for the administration and congress's favored companies and associated firms. I thought ending lobbying was one of the campaign promises. Oh well, just one more un-met promise that is justified!
One key thing to remember; utopias do not exist. Also manmade things are fraught with error, failure, grossly overestimate deliverables, underestimate cost and generally provide very poor security.
Finally, you did not actually find the solutions to the two key shortages that prevented unhealthily life style- time and willingness. A good business comparison might be ERP-CRM. These systems promise incredible returns and very very infrequently if ever have they made or saved any money let alone break even. Why would these be any different?
October 6, 2009 at 1:02pm by Diane Geiger
Hi Kandy. You know... I didn't find the statement about the Town Hall attendees to be derogatory towards our beliefs or opinions. It seemed to me a mention of what's "lost" in the over-the-top screaming-match debates (ie: a clear vision is lost... but also the inclination of others towards taking our opinions seriously is lost. Due to the communication *approach*, itself.)
I agree with what you said about the two key shortages: time and willingness. I'd argue that willingness is the major one. Because we all make time for what we truly, honestly value most. When we (personally) value our health, for real, we *make* time to care for our health. And become willing to let other lesser concerns go. But there's a big diff. between what we *say* we value, and what we really honestly value inside. Our *true* values are typically evidenced by our actions and personal choices, right?
October 6, 2009 at 1:16pm by Daryle Hier
"gun-toting Townhalls"? Really?! Showed your colors there, comrade.
Only frog here is the one boiling. Want to make the healthcare situation better? Reduce fraud, tort reform and have government do one of the ONLY things that Constitutionally they should be doing and thats regulate Interstate Commerce by allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. Watch healthcare cost fall - oh, but thats not really the point.
The only "managed convenience" this so-called illustration makes will be waiting for government lackeys to tell whether you get any healthcare or not - through your iPhone, by automaton - which is so personal, its makes me all fuzzy inside.
BTW, allowing cronism to run rampant, which is what you seem to favor in this fascist article, will destroy whats left of our Republic. We lost capitalism a long time ago and need to get back to what made this country great - not inane and impossible heaven-on-earth socialism.
October 6, 2009 at 1:35pm by Daryle Hier
Obviously anyone who's actually been to a Town Hall knows even the ones that get a little more heated are concerned passions more than "over the top shouting matches". I think "clear vision is lost" here.
Time is lost by Government taking more and more away from us, which in-turn forces us to lose more time. We then have to confront our "lost" politicians and remind them who actually voted them in and why. When we no longer have the willingness to fight for our rights, we all lose.
October 6, 2009 at 1:51pm by Tanya Berezin
A couple of observations:
1. In this vision, it seems the primary care doctor isn't really involved in much of heathcare. It may very well be acknowledging the current state of affairs most of us only have seven to ten minutes to interact with our doctor on any given visit. But I question that we want to go that way even more. Perhaps the technology ought to focus on relieving doctors from mundane tasks like arguing with our insurance and enable us and our doctors to have more time to talk to each other.
2. What heaven - or hell? - for hypochondriacs! Imagine every little twinge of pain or spot on one's skin being minutely examined right when it occurs - instead of having to wait to see a doctor and the issue resolving itself in the meantime. My condolences to wives and mothers of hypochondriacs out there :)
October 6, 2009 at 1:56pm by Charlie Hammell
Ridicule the voices of ordinary citizens at your own peril. Where were the concerns about over-the-top protests during the previous eight years? Why are we being lectured now to calm down and be reasonable (i.e. "agree with me")? The writer is quite naive to think that all we need is better, more streamlined information and all will be fine.
October 6, 2009 at 2:12pm by Larry Mankins
I, too, am concerned about the pejorative tone of the intro. Maybe I am just over-sensitive, having become part of the politically vocal "angry mob" for the first time in my adult life trying to prevent government from encroaching on every part of my existence. Frankly, we don't need the "help." The thing I keep coming back to is that the free market rewards creativity, speed to market and elegant simplicity....bureaucracies tend to reward, well...more bureaucracy. I actually would love to see some of these inventions in my lifetime...which essentially requires the bureaucracy to stay out of the way.
October 6, 2009 at 3:10pm by Sheetal Dube
I am your Susan and your vision of the future healthcare concerns me. While I can understand the thought that has gone into creating the concept of the connected healthcare network, I don’t think it meets my needs. I don’t want technology to take over my life. I don’t want to press buttons, look at monitors, get reminders, etc. I would much rather spend quality time with my family. I would like Susan to take her kids to the park, spend evenings with her parents and relax with her husband. I believe that that future is possible, if Susan wastes less time dealing with these gadgets. I think we need to focus more on what our users want instead of what we think that technology can do for us.
October 6, 2009 at 3:13pm by Chris Hockley
Why is there so much radical fear in the anti-health reform movement? Not a rhetorical question - I really want to know why certain groups are so ginned up that they can't have civil conversations about how to meet the health care challenges we face. What are you afraid will happen (to you personally) if we start to bring more efficiencies to the system through investments in HIT, insurance reform, quality measurement, etc...
October 6, 2009 at 3:19pm by Trent Renner
This article shows us all that progress is coming. I think the article shows that the private sector can make this shift without the bureaucracy of government control. The Best Process should not hinder progress!
The government is SLOW and CLUMSY. I agree that the author of this article is biased. I attended a town hall...don't even have a gun!
October 6, 2009 at 3:27pm by Kenne Turner
The article contains a lot of very creative ideas. However, for those of you concerned about the creative use of technology to help create healthier communities, not to worry. There are those in our society that will always question progress and see it socialistic conspiracy to take over our lives. I don't agree, but it might be a necessary form of checks & balance.
October 6, 2009 at 3:40pm by Larry Mankins
Chris, It is not reform in and of itself that is being rejected, it is THIS reform. Expecting government to bring efficiency into the system ignores past experience with government. No one would accuse the government of being "lean" and "efficient." The current health care, health insurance (or whatever the current naming convention being used) is swatting a fly (uninsured Americans) with a sledge hammer, using our money and money the Feds are depending on from our kids. This is not the legacy I want to leave my kids....massive debt and less freedom than I/we enjoy. The Feds would do well to re-read the US Constitution again and stick to what the framers stipulated, and leave the rest to the people and the market. The innovations and creativity in the referenced piece depend on companies investing their own profits into new tools and solutions, not money taken from taxpayers....when did "profit"....even "wildly profitable" become a "bad" thing....November 2008?
October 6, 2009 at 4:12pm by Larry Mankins
I, too, am concerned about the pejorative tone of the intro. Maybe I am just over-sensitive, having become part of the politically vocal "angry mob" for the first time in my adult life trying to prevent government from encroaching on every part of my existence. Frankly, we don't need the "help." The thing I keep coming back to is that the free market rewards creativity, speed to market and elegant simplicity....bureaucracies tend to reward, well...more bureaucracy. I actually would love to see some of these inventions in my lifetime...which essentially requires the bureaucracy to stay out of the way.
October 6, 2009 at 5:13pm by Larry Mankins
I, too, am concerned about the pejorative tone of the intro. Maybe I am just over-sensitive, having become part of the politically vocal "angry mob" for the first time in my adult life trying to prevent government from encroaching on every part of my existence. Frankly, we don't need the "help." The thing I keep coming back to is that the free market rewards creativity, speed to market and elegant simplicity....bureaucracies tend to reward, well...more bureaucracy. I actually would love to see some of these inventions in my lifetime...which essentially requires the bureaucracy to stay out of the way.
October 6, 2009 at 11:24pm by Tabitha Evans
You are possessed by the devil. You cannot hear yourselves spouting untruths. Seek an exorcist immediately.
Please point me to any sentence in this article that describes a government-run program. The systems described here are separate technologies that could be assembled by an individual in the not-too-distant future. These systems WILL be promoted by private insurers to help them drive down the cost of your care and improve the quality of your life. There is no mention in this article of any government involvement.
The other argument seems to be that gathering information about your personal health is a dangerous dependency on technology, and therefore cannot work. But what is the alternative, increasing dependence on medical professionals. I prefer a system that helps me gather and analyze my own information... and not have to wait for an inefficient expensive doctor visit, where by-the-way those medical professionals will use technology to diagnose me. The technology described here is a democratization of that technology.
FYI, by contributing in this editorial response we are all willingly participating in a social process, comrade, just like the social processes described in the article.
October 6, 2009 at 11:43pm by Will Johnson
Technology is here to stay folks and the health system does need reform on many levels. The insurance and drug lobbies are far too strong in this country and the voices of physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals, you know, those with actual medical jobs, don't carry enough weight. The system is out of balance. There has to be a combination of tort reform, insurance and pharm regulation and a focus more on preventative healthcare, rather than simply treating the symptoms of our collective unhealthy lifestyles. Additionally, like any business, our healthcare industry must use all the tools available to make it run as efficiently as possible, which means embracing technology (the point of this article, I believe). If we don't fix the system for those folks, so they can make the living worthy of their effort and education, then we're all sunk.
Private or public options be damned, if the system isn't working for the doctors and those who are employed to care for us, it is in need of fixing. I'm not sure of all the answers, but I'd like to hear more from the REAL pros in the field and less from those in Washington OR those who get their opinions from whatever biased political pundits they choose to take direction from.
Will Johnson
www.TheRecruiter.com
October 7, 2009 at 1:33pm by Julie Wainwright
First, I applaud the authors for starting this discussion. Now, I'm going to add some stats to the discussion, with a general statement. The problem with our health care system is not just about the doctors and the insurers and the health care infrastructure. Much of our health issues are within our control. Unfortunately, we as collective individuals aren't stepping up to keep ourselves healthy. Here are the stats: Cardiac and heart related illnesses result in $470 Billion dollars of health care costs annually. Obesity costs $140 Billion dollars annually. Diabetes (which is sometimes related to obesity as are heart conditions) costs $70 billion in health care costs annually. These are the top three costs with obesity being the one with the fastest growth rate. There are estimates that over 50%--yep, 50%!, of all our health costs are preventable if individuals made better choices in their diet, exercise, alcohol consumption and smoking cessation. So, in thinking about the health care crisis in our country, we first have to think about how we educate all of us, not just the ones who have technology readily available, to make better health choices every day. I think it starts with mandated nutrition classes and exercise in our schools. As for the recommendations of the authors, great vision, little chance of being implemented in my life time in a manner that positively impact health care costs. We have to start with the fundamentals while providing a road map to general better health that includes technology. I am reminded of a friend of mine who wanted to spread the use of technology in developing nations. What he found out is that people needed mosquito nets, clean water and food before they could even think about the internet. He went back to the basics and affected real change. We have to do the same.
October 7, 2009 at 3:46pm by Allen Wicklund
I am totally offended at your "gun toting town hall meetings." There was not one single instance where guns were brought to one of these meetings. The majority of Americans, especially those of us who actually pay taxes, about the expense of this program. I have always enjoyed your magazine and now currently this weekly e-magazine. I will stop reading if you are just another arm of the Obama Media Propaganda Machine.
October 7, 2009 at 4:17pm by Ken Accardi
Thank you to Jennifer and Barbara for starting a terrific and important discussion! This sets a vision which will transform our lives and our healthcare, and also lead to significant entrepreneurship (that I'm sure will be a key focus in FastCompany for years to come).
Ultimately, reforming care will require more ownership and individual accountability and will be greatly aided by technologies including the internet, smart phones and smart devices to help monitor our condition between visits to the hospital. Thanks to great advances in medicine, we no longer die from many conditions like diabetis, AIDS and certain cancers that would have killed our grandparents.
Healthcare needs to go through a transformation like most all industries that start with expensive and centralized solutions practiced by experts, and ultimately become inexpensive and distributed do-it-yourself propositions. Just as communication went from the Western Union telegraph, to the home phone, to the cell phone, healthcare needs to move from the hospital to the home. This doesn't mean that the doctors will be out of business, but rather it means that they need to solve the really hard problems, while the Minute Clinc at CVS or the preventive care at home will take on more of a share of the easy stuff.
The trickiest part of all of this is how to motivate people to take care of themselves, especially people who don't feel sick until something really bad happens. People with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, smokers, and pre-diabetis basically feel fine from day to day until something goes wrong and then their life takes a big turn for the worse and the cost of their healthcare shoots through the roof. One suggestion I recently read was to have systems like the one described in this article be deployed by companies as part of the employee health benefits and to give more money (in the form of a health savings account) to those who use the system regularly. I don't want to get involved in the political debate over who pays for care, but I do strongly believe that if people have no costs or "skin in the game" that they won't step up and manage their own care.
If you like this topic, I'd highly suggest that you read THE INNOVATOR'S PRESCRIPTION, by Clayton Christensen. This book very thoughfully lays out a plan that can ultimately reform health care.
For my part, I'm working to develop technologies to improve the efficiency of home based care and to improve the coordination of care between patients, their "social networks" and their care-givers. You can check out what we're doing at www.ankota.com.
--
Ken Accardi
CTO and Co-founder
Ankota, Inc.
www.ankota.com
October 7, 2009 at 4:38pm by Paul Dixey
So why is Susan doing all of this with little or no involvement from her husband? Why can't men "tend to (his) family's varying health needs while still having time for (him)self" ?
October 7, 2009 at 5:00pm by Dwayne King
Umm, wow. Are you people really this nuts, or are you making these comments in jest?
I don't want to speak for the authors, but I think they were trying to say the conversation about how to actually improve healthcare is being lost in politics (I'm guessing they may even think politicking on the left and right is clouding a real discussion about how to improve healthcare). Rather than behaving as adults and discussing the merits of the proposed solutions, you go off on some whack-job rants about socialism, lobbying, etc.
Sorry to interrupt the crazy talk, proceed...
October 7, 2009 at 5:31pm by Kristian Bluff
So here we have a people centered design approach resulting in a "one gadget fits all" solution. The end result is way off target. The Medtech industry, design consultants included, should be focusing their efforts on the needs of people who are unable to afford even the most basic treatment. This means making healthcare accessible, equipment affordable and time for care. A user centered approach must take into account the many different types of user profiles and not just guess that "Susan" is both thee buyer, thee carer and thee patient.
October 8, 2009 at 2:47pm by Robin Tucker
How many user-centered designers have racial/ethnic diversity on their design teams? How about Frog Design? How can you design anything, especially healthcare without truly understanding the cultural dimensions. And you can't get that from reading a book or a research report. You've got to live it. I challenger your Blogger's to anwser how they incorporate African Americans, Latinos, Hispanics (they are different), Chicanos, Southeast Asians, Chinese, Japanese perspectives in their user-centered design process.
October 13, 2009 at 2:56pm by david waxman
fantastic article! great job of illustrating how all these health 2.0 technologies will work together to create a truly end to end health solution. it will take some time, but the initial pieces are in place and the capital is being invested to develop the infrastructure. i think if the consumer can be educated on the advantages (like this article did such a good job of) they will press for change.
david waxman
co-founder, VITA products, inc.
www.vitaband.net