On RxPop.com you can find a very nice collection of recent videos which feature various 2008 U.S. political nominees and figures speaking out on the Healthcare Crisis in the United States.

RxPop.com also features an API to ProjectVoteSmart.com. This API provides for useful information on all politicians.

Healthcare Crisis in Politics Videos can be found at:

http://www.rxpop.com/politics.asp

Enjoy!

I’m very much in agreement with Han’s in that Google will eventually build out or acquire an existing brand that helps consumers to check drug prices and ultimately fill their prescription with a licensed online pharmacy.

That’s exactly what RxPop.com does! It puts legitimate patients in touch with licensed online pharmacies operating within the U.S. and Canada and enables them to securely place their orders.

It will be interesting to which direction Google goes in terms of “pharmacy” and “prescription drugs”.

The rules in Ontario concerning who can record and store information, what can be stored, who can access that information and when it can be accessed, by whom, are complex, detailed and subject to interpretation.

Unfortunately there are more than 70 jurisdictions in Canada and the USA, with different laws, rules and regulatory mechanisms to control health information. For so long as the separate Provinces and States have their own laws and systems of regulation it will be difficult, if not impossible, for any one health information provider to provide a personal health record without bearing an onerous liability.

There is little value in offering a disruptive technology if the resulting penalties cause insolvency.

I suggest that there are as many competing software solutions as there are jurisdictions because each solution is designed for a limited legal and regulatory environment, typically comprising one jurisdiction.

From this analysis I suggest that the primary need is for the Federal Government’s of Canada and the USA to create one market for health, and one set of laws governing the market with one regulator to control it.

Then it is possible that disruptive technology may be applied in the face of fierce opposition from the entrenched professional and business interests. But that is a thought for another time.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to follow Google’s work recently so I’m not sure what they may have in mind regarding the pharma industry. However, if I had to guess, I don’t think it would relate to clinical trials.

My reasoning is that clinical trials have very specific information needs to meet regulatory demands and also for research purposes. From my observations of actual clinical trials here in Canada, I’m not sure what value Google would provide. I’ve seen some very interesting electronic tools that seem to meet the needs of clinicians (see TrialStat! at http://www.trialstat.com). Besides, it’s not as if pharmaceutical companies are short of money to develop their own (custom) tools.

However, if Google were to develop a pharma specific strategy, I would think it would be directed at consumers. I would think Google could leverage its search technologies to develop a compendium of drugs (which exists elsewhere), but make it accessible to consumers (for free of course). Its search capabilities could also collect things relating to side effects or patient experiences. I could also potentially see some sort of Google product that could also check drug prices to help consumers determine where and from whom to fulfill their prescriptions.

These are just some thoughts that come to mind. We have to remember that Google is a search company that makes money off of paid advertising. Developing tools to help companies complete clinical trials doesn’t really fit into this business/operating model. This isn’t to say that Google *can’t* develop such a suite of products. I just don’t think Google is targeting pharmaceutical companies.

I suppose Google could leverage the recent trend of social networking and “open source”, community knowledge by recording side effects of drugs (dosages, frequency, etc). This work could potentially benefit the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) and drug companies to track long-term effects of taking drugs.

Again, thanks for the comment. I’ll definitely think about this a bit more and potentially write a post on the topic.

Hans.

I found your hypothesis about Google quite interesting, we all know they have been discussing moving into the healthcare field for quite some time. I recently heard they created a new solution for the Pharm industry, I’m not really sure what it is but just heard rumors. I’m thinking it has to do with managing clinical trials data – which would really make sense and really help the industry. What’s your take on their move into the Pharm industry?

I agree that health care is not like other industries and that special care needs to be taken to develop an understanding of the special needs and nuances of the industry.

I’m also not suggesting that a company can auto-magically create something that everyone will use, usurping the entrenched, health care vendors. As you point out, it’s not so easy.

I also agree that the issues in health care are not so much technical but a combination of technical, medical, and social factors. As my colleagues and I often point out, technology can’t solve the problems in health care – they can play a role, but that depends on judicious use, planning, and foresight.

But, the point of this post was not to suggest that Google *will* take the EHR/PHR market. Instead, I was using Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovations and applying it to health care. The theory predicts that someone organization (like Google) has an opportunity to introduce a potentially disruptive innovation. The McKessens of the world aren’t going after patients because in their value chains, they are non-consumers. These large corporations are trying to meet the demands of the large hospitals/HMOs/RHIOs, leaving an opportunity for someone (it could be McKessen) to develop a solution.

Based on the cost structure of the established vendors, they are not likely to develop such a product (according to the theory). Google could introduce a lower cost product that is just “good enough” to meet the needs of patients who aren’t as demanding for decision support, integrated systems, and electronic ordering. As Google introduces a product, they can slowly move “up market”.

Again, I appreciate a) that you read my post and b) your comment. This post was more an exercise of taking a theory/framework and applying it to a situation and to try and predict some outcomes.