
- November 2007
- Volume 8
- Issue 11
The Health 2.0 Movement Must Keep its Eyes on the Prize
On September 20, 2007, the first-ever conference devoted to Health 2.0 convened in San Francisco. Co-produced by health industry consultants, Matthew Holt and Dr. Indu Subaiya, this well-attended...
On September 20, 2007, the first-ever conference devoted to “Health 2.0” convened in San Francisco. Co-produced by health industry consultants, Matthew Holt and Dr. Indu Subaiya, this well-attended event showcased the latest products designed to help consumers and physicians filter, sort, and comprehend health information.
Holt, who trademarked it, defines Health 2.0 as the application of Web 2.0 tools (blogs, search engines, etc) to health. Physician-blogger
Shreeve’s view of Health 2.0 is attractive, because it is all-inclusive. Rather than focusing on technology, he is talking about how these tools can solve the health system’s structural problems. Unfortunately, many at the Health 2.0 conference were not thinking this broadly, as prominent entrepreneur and investor Esther Dyson observed on the blog she writes for the
Dyson was concerned that some of the companies exhibiting at the event were more interested in pursuing their exit strategies than changing the healthcare system for the better.
Can Health 2.0 Solve the BIG Problems?
The US health system has many problems, but these rise to the top of the list:
• Access: Ensuring everyone can enjoy good, quality healthcare
• Practice Variation: Streamlining the system to reduce gaps/differences in care between geographic regions and socioeconomic groups
• Administration: Reducing bureaucracy, duplication of services, and paperwork
• Consumerism: Helping consumers successfully assume the position of primary health manager
• Health Illiteracy: Reducing the proportion of American adults who are functionally health illiterate
• Caregiving: What can we do to help younger generations get ready to pay for and manage their parents’ (and grandparents’) care? Dyson’s (and my) frustration with the current Health 2.0 movement is that it is very fragmented. Because of this, it is not well-prepared to tackle the big issues. Granted, technology can only play a limited role in improving access, but it can help to solve other seemingly intractable problems.
Competition is good and necessary, but Health 2.0 companies should be looking for ways to enter into mutually beneficial partnerships when possible. In addition, while there is a great debate about the future of the US health system, there has been very little conversation about how innovative entrepreneurs can inject themselves into the policymaking process. Marty Tenenbaum, creator of
In a
Fard Johnmar is the founder of Envision Solutions, LLC, a full-service healthcare marketing communications consulting firm. Visit
Articles in this issue
almost 18 years ago
The Data Protection Primer 2007almost 18 years ago
Running Windows Vista on a Macalmost 18 years ago
Small-Town Tech, Big-City Servicealmost 18 years ago
The Gearhead's 2007 Holiday Gadget-Buying Guide


































