Comments on: Providers Taking Closer Look at PHRs

By: PB

PB — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:58:12 +0000

[...] was discussed yesterday, Chilmark Research is seeing an uptick in provider interest to deploy and use PHRs that go beyond [...]

By: lori

lori — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:06:52 +0000

Hi John,
To your point, I recently read about the testing of digital at-home visits based on a PHR platform. The patients select a participating physician, share their medical files as necessary, and get a digital consult either by ichat, phone or video conferencing. It will be interesting to see if it does well and spreads in usage. Certainly could be an effective way that PHRs could help reduce clogged ERs, and get people care for conditions appropriate to this management style.

By: John

John — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:52:56 +0000

Hi Robin,
Today, most provider PHRs have little if any participatory features beyond the transactional processes I mentioned, e.g., making appts, Rx refill requests, billing, lab results viewing and maybe an eConsult. Beyond that, very little.

Part of the point of this post was to bring to light that some providers are now beginning to look at more participatory activities/interactions btwn patients and clinicians. Still very early and only a few are doing this, but this may be a trend in the right direction – sure hope so.

Also, let us not lose sight of the ARRA Stimulus funding and “meaningful use” wherein care coordination might be defined as not only clinician to clinician sharing of health data, but clinician to patient. Keeping my fingers crossed that HHS will see it that way.

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 16 May 2009 03:35:58 +0000

Hi, John. I find this very interesting. Looking at your article from the patient perspective, where do you see the “participatory” part of patient input? I see output for patients, but I don’t see input. Did I miss it?

I believe a collaborative model where both patient and healthcare provider input information is mandatory for optimal healthcare. Although there will be patients who will never use it (just like ATM’s if using Claudio’s analogy), the option should be there for those who will. And in a relatively short time, most people WILL. Like other technological trends, the growth of use is almost exponential (Hawkins,Kurzweil, etc.)

Regards

By: Tethered PHRs: Cutting the Umbilical Cord « Chilmark Research

Tethered PHRs: Cutting the Umbilical Cord « Chilmark Research — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:51:39 +0000

[...] was discussed yesterday, Chilmark Research is seeing an uptick in provider interest to deploy and use PHRs that go beyond [...]

By: John

John — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:15:23 +0000

Claudio,
Just have to ask, how many PHR apps have you actually used? You are taking a pretty broad brush to the sector, that may be true overall, but there are some interesting apps popping up here and there.

Indeed, the market is still quite immature, after all, the first web-based PHR was introduced less than a decade ago. While maturity is needed in the apps, it is difficult to draw comparisons to other online transactional processes such as you referenced. What a CHF patient needs is quite a bit different than one wih diabetes or asthma or simply a healthy individual that is looking to track and trend diet, immunizations, etc. And then there are those who may be managing the health of an elderly love one, again, a completely different set of needs.

So yes, it is immature, most PHR apps are poorly designed and consumer engagement/adoption remains lackluster, which may ultimately be the biggest challenge of all for this sector.

Lincoln,
Yes, there are far too many PHR apps for a market that is absolutely tiny in terms of total revenue and users. It is very easy to put one of these apps together and launch it into the market and once there, really doesn’t take much to keep it going. That being said, many of these vendors will simply fade away.

We, Chilmark Research, is indeed starting to see some newer apps coming into the market that break away from the dated PHR model that was really nothing more than an online filing cabinet with incredibly simplistic tools.

Also agree on the whole tethered-PHR issue, a dated model who’s time has come to pass. Will write more abut that in upcoming post.

By: Lincoln N.

Lincoln N. — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:51:20 +0000

The problem is that the PHR market is incredibly fragmented. At last count there are 75+ independent PHR vendors out there.

Vendors need to stop making me-too tethered PHR sites and focus on value-added applications that give actionable data.

By: Claudio Luís Vera

Claudio Luís Vera — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:43:27 +0000

It’s proof that PHRs are truly an immature market. The proof is in the shortage of features, the shallowness of information, and the abysmal quality of design for these first-gen PHRs.

If you can think back to first generation ATMs, the interfaces were pretty awful — but we were more than satisfied because of the utility they offered us.

Unfortunately, with PHRs users/patients won’t be satisfied with merely having limited access to data. They’ll quickly come to expect the same level of sophistication they expect from online reservation systems, online banking, and e-commerce.

Let’s see how long it is before a second generation of PHRs (such as Polka, for example) starts gaining traction in the market.