The Quintiles-sponsored report, Reinventing Biopharma, found that most pharma companies have made at least one change to their business model, commercial and/or R&D strategy to meet this ‘value challenge’; many are accepting that the demand to provide value has had an important or significant impact on their business model and are “coordinating the response to the challenge across the company”.

Dr Adrian Thomas, VP for Market Access at Janssen, for example, said that the company’s R&D organization has developed a “fairly solid understanding of payer value”. He explained: “Clinical evidence and regulatory hurdles are still crucial, but equally important are commercial considerations that products will meet other thresholds of acceptability…We have the value question as a critical piece of decision making. That is a huge departure from three to five years ago.”

But there remains little convergence in dealing with the value question; no single strategy is emerging as a majority favourite. As Dr Ed Pezalla of Aetna comments, while many players are aware of the issue, “substantial change still has to take place”.

Until then, demonstrating value will very much remain a challenge for the industry.

Reinventing Biopharma: the value challenge, is available here.

Those issues (adverse events, off-label discussions, fair balance presentation, no meaningful FDA guidance) hardly need rehashing here, and despite the barriers, progress has been made on the digital front, as evidenced by – if nothing else – pharma’s willingness to invest in smaller-scale social media efforts not directly tied to product sales. In the digital sphere, ROI means “hitting the primary endpoint,” and that endpoint could be data collection, engagement with widgets or functionalities on a page or within an app, or the number of visitors (or likes) on a Facebook page. “The ROI of social media is that your business will still exist in five years,” a quote from Socialnomics author Erik Qualman that surfaced in one of the presentations, speaks to the accepted necessity – in some quarters – of social media participation and customer engagement.

“Advertising has already largely shifted to what people say about your brand,” as opposed to the magazine, television and radio ads that people consume, said Martin Husar, customer strategy and innovation at Sanofi Canada. In Canada, DTC isn’t allowed, but last October Sanofi tapped the Toronto-based agency MediResource for an interactive Facebook campaign around atrial fibrillation (A-fib). The business objective, said Husar, was to “own the primary venues for Canadian patients and caregivers to learn about AFib.” By his measure, the company’s Afib at Heart | La fibrillation auriculaire à coeur Facebook campaign has been a success – one need not “like” the page to access the content, and thousands have clicked on tabs like “Ask the Expert,” or “Don’t Skip a Beat,” a Simon-inspired memory game.

A Janssen Canada educational campaign around psoriasis goes a step further, offering a list of available treatments, and a dermatology locator that returns only those dermatologists who “agree that they will use biologics” – Janssen markets Stelara, an immunomodulating biologic – and who have voluntarily signed up to be listed on Janssen’s Living Well With Psoriasis website, according to Spilios Asimakopoulos, director of marketing technology, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Canada. The site also offers a shareable psoriasis “severity calculator,” which is available online or as an app for download.

South of the Canadian border, others agree that the educational/disease awareness space is a good place for experimentation. John Patten, a sales rep for Facebook, told ePharma attendees that “Facebook makes sense in terms of initial support groups [for rare diseases], and locating others with the disease.” He also singled out Bayer’s Walk for Hemophilia and Sanofi Pasteur’s Voices of Meningitis as good examples of Facebook educational campaigns. “Pharma is more powerful in the unbranded, open wall pages” on Facebook, said Patten. Whitelisted brand pages, or pages with the comments function disabled, will be “de-prioritized in the news feed,” and they go against Facebook’s model, which Patten defined as “a distribution platform that promotes authentic sharing.” Perhaps as an added nudge to discourage whitelisted pages, Patten announced that by the end of February, “admins can drill down into individual commenters, and message them directly,” to help deal with “your drug turned my arm blue” adverse events comments.

A couple of hours before Patten’s presentation, however, a regulatory affairs director from a major pharmaceutical company was on a panel griping about the fact that while Facebook allows blocking of comments on the wall, “we can’t turn off sharing or commenting” on the actual brand image. Asked whether the company responds to such comments on the branded Facebook page, the panelist said no: “once you do that, where do you stop?”

Allergan CEO David Pyott

Allergan CEO David Pyott is bullish on Botox’s potential as a salve for chronic migraine. He’s also betting on a next-gen dihydroergotamine (DHE) – Levadex – from MAP Pharmaceuticals.

It’s hard to know whether migraine sufferers will get behind Botox as a treatment; migraine patients are notoriously allergic to doctor visits, and many go undiagnosed. But for the worst kinds of migraines, particularly those that don’t respond to triptans or currently marketed DHEs, patients will probably be willing to try just about anything. Allergan CEO David Pyott, and MAP Pharmaceuticals CEO Tim Nelson, see headroom for growth in the category.

In 2009, the migraine market slipped into a steady decline after Imitrex, the go-to member of the triptan class, lost its patent (and blockbuster sales). Many of Imitrex’s classmates – Maxalt, Amerge, Zomig, and others – will face generic competition this year, if they aren’t facing it already. That makes Botox for migraine a difficult sell – it’s for chronic migraine, firstly, and it costs exponentially more than generic Imitrex – but during a 4Q earnings call yesterday Pyott said the migraine indication is performing “better than planned.” Around 4,600 physicians have been trained to give the injection, to date, said Pyott. “The vast majority of neurologists will inject for as long as three injection cycles,” even if they’re skeptical about the drug’s efficacy for migraine,” he Pyott. He’s hoping they’ll be convinced after that.

Branded print ads for Botox migraine will launch in women’s magazines this month, and an unbranded disease awareness campaign on television “has worked – the click-through on the website is positive,” said Pyott, adding that Allergan’s internal consumer surveys have shown “a high level of satisfaction” among patients.

After an upfront payment of $60 million last February, MAP Pharmaceuticals scored a $20 million milestone payment last August, when it filed Levadex with FDA. The company could receive up to $97 million more from Allergan if all goes well with the regulatory process; the PDUFA date on Levadex is March 26. Levadex, like Valeant Pharmaceuticals’ Migranal, is a DHE, but Migranal is a nasal spray, while Levadex is inhaled. The benefit with inhalation means that the drug sidesteps first pass metabolism en route to the brain – it avoids the GI tract, and potential dilution. At JP Morgan’s 30^th Annual Healthcare Conference in January, MAP CEO Tim Nelson said that Levadex “works faster, and has fewer side effects, than the triptans.” He added that 29 million scripts for migraine were written in 2008, and close to half of them were written off-label. After triptan, “41 percent of the scripts were for opioids, and 28 percent were anti-depressants,” said Nelson. MAP will hire 50 specialty sales reps if Levadex gets the FDA go-ahead, and will expand the drug into pediatrics and other neurological conditions later on, he said.

Levadex won’t compete directly with Botox for migraine; the former is for acute migraine, the latter for chronic migraine. Nelson said Allergan’s expertise in managed care, reimbursement and experience with FDA, makes it a good partner for Levadex. MAP is also looking for “a partner in Asia, and in ex-US in general,” said Nelson.

At $40 to $80, with a ceiling at $100 per dose, though, Levadex may be as tough a sell as Botox. But then again, migraine sufferers only want one thing when the pain sets in: for it to be gone.

Buck Luce is an insider in an outsider’s field – management consultancy. As global pharmaceutical sector leader, Buck Luce is responsible for overseeing strategy, thought leadership, resourcing, learning, and solutions for E&Y’s life science clients.  In the past several years, she has overseen a series of reports called Progressions that document the turbulence of the external forces buffeting the industry and argues for a radical shift in mindset, away from selling a pill to offering a broader public health solution linked to documented improvement in patient outcomes.  The message is not always welcome in big pharma circles, and it requires an outsider’s dose of moxie to sell it.  Buck Luce alludes to this work as a “conversation” – one that has to take place.

Her selection itself represents something of a departure from the norm, given that most recent awardees have come from the big pharma “C suite” of senior managers with line responsibilities.  In that sense, Buck Luce as WOTY provides further evidence of the importance that pharma now accords to those who can interpret the business to a much broader range of stakeholders.  She enjoys a reputation as a skilled communicator whose signal mission is to impart a sense of urgency to the need for transformation, not only in the formal business model but more importantly in the practical ways that companies must change to maintain ties to customers, and ultimately the patient.  All of us who have dealt with Buck Luce know that her fiercest enemy is complacency – because time is money and the time to change is now.

In addition to her role at Ernst & Young, Buck Luce is co-chair and co-founder of The Talent Innovation Task Force and currently serves on the Mayor’s Commission on Women’s Issues in New York City, where she advises on strategies and programs to make it the best large city for women to live and work. She has also serves on the Board of Directors of the New York Women’s Foundation where she has held a variety of officer positions, most recently as chair.

“Carolyn’s accomplishments span both public and private, profit and not-profit work, and her passions for making a difference in the lives of women and children shine through everything she does,” says New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. “At a time when I am calling for women to get off the sidelines and join a national call to action to help this country be all it can be, I am happy to hold up Carolyn as a role model for others.”

In a long-standing partnership with the HBA, Pharmaceutical Executive devotes its cover story every April to honoring the Woman of the Year with a feature highlighting her personal and professional challenges, accomplishments, and advice to others in the industry.  It will appear in our April issue, in advance of the WOTY event on May 3.

To help shape the Woman of the Year’s priorities over the next year, Pharm Exec is interested in our online readers’ take on the following: In what new ways can the HBA drive change and diversity in the industry?  Should the focus be on women or on the broader elements of building the more diverse workforce required in a globalized business?

Responses on the value of eDetails compared with in-person details differed significantly across the four practice areas covered – family medicine, oncology, cardiovascular and allergy/immunology – and suggest that biopharmaceutical companies have an opportunity to adjust the promotional mix for stronger returns.

Over the last two years, in-person visits to oncologists decreased by 14%, but eDetails for the group only increased by 4%. Allergy/Immunology docs saw a 5% decrease in rep visits, but eDetailing grew by 8%. Still, allergy/immunology docs only received 1.8 eDetails per week, on average, but would like to see 3.3 eDetails per week, according to the survey results.

In terms of perceived value, in-person reps ranked higher across the board. However, oncologists and family medicine practitioners said they were better educated by eDetails, whereas cardiologists and allergy/immunology docs said in-person reps provided a better education.

Regardless of whether a physician prefers eDetails or traditional sales calls, the kinds of material preferences included in a detail also vary by practice area. “If you go into a cardiology detail without referencing clinical trial data, they’re going to feel like something’s missing,” says Kevin Olson, CEO at Industry Standard Research, publisher of the survey. Oncologists, on the other hand, “don’t tell us the same thing” about clinical trial data, says Olson. Oncologists (39%) cited the ability to answer product-related questions as the most important aspect of a detail, followed by the inclusion of information that is “sufficiently patient focused,” at 30%. Fifty percent of cardiologists said clinical trial data is most important.

Samples remain a critical part of the in-person detail experience, according to survey results, despite the fact that many eDetailing platforms provide an easy way to request samples. Asked what is lost when in-person details go the way of the dodo bird, Olson says that distribution of samples was “one of the biggest results,” although it’s “pretty clear in our data that physicians do receive value” from the opportunity to dialogue with a human being. Asked about some of the more surprising results of the survey, Olson says one question asked about the importance of key opinion leader (KOL) content; he was surprised to learn that it did not rank highly in comparison to other aspects of the detail.

The 130-page report, titled eDetailing vs. In-person Detailing: A head-to-head comparison of Volume, Time, Value, and Outcomes, surveyed 118 practicing U.S. physicians during the fourth quarter of 2011. Participants completed a 15-minute web-based quantitative survey.

Audrey S. Erbes, Principal, Erbes & Associates, outlines the highlights of this week’s event in San Francisco.

One of the few positive notes struck in this week’s 30th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference (held in San Francisco) was the announcement by Kevin Willsey, J.P. Morgan’s co-head of investment banking for North America, that the U.S. economy would grow 2.5 percent in 2012. Despite this encouraging note and media reports of a strengthening economy, however, an air of uncertainty permeated the conference halls as attendees moved from session to session.

Willsey conceded that “the elephant in the room remains Europe”, and this imagery reappeared in the opening remarks of Jamie Dimon, J.P.Morgan’s Chairman and CEO. In a Q&A with Maria Bartiromo, Anchor of CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” Dimon referred to a COPD TV commercial and feeling like the patient with an elephant sitting on his chest: concerns of uncertainty, regulation, and the European and U.S. economy weighed on his mind. His remarks provided much needed levity and a feeling of hope that we’d all live to see another day despite the sobering challenges faced by the country and industry.

The major breaking news of an otherwise uninspiring event was Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $2.5 billion purchase of Inhibitex. Apart from that, a welcome surprise among Big Pharma presenters was the newcomer from Roche Holdings AG, CFO Alan Hippe, whose unexpected energy was truly engaging, especially, when he noted there was something wrong when R&D returns had decreased to the cost of capital. Hippe apologetically warned the audience his presentation would be boring with its focus on financials. It was no surprise that “operational excellence” continues to be a key goal at Roche. Against this backdrop Hippe shared a 14% and 8% decline in 2011 sales versus 2010 for the pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, respectively. But he softened this bad news with reminder that Roche provided an attractive dividend payment with an average yearly growth of 22% between 2004 and 2010.

Other presentations from Big Pharma and Big Biotech, however, were often lackluster — downright boring in some cases — as speakers made stock statements and provided financial data intended to comfort investors that the interest of shareholders was a top priority. Several members of the audience mentioned they could have obtained this information from company websites and noted the similarity in phrases and financial slogans heard repeatedly across presentations.

Pfizer’s Chairman and CEO, Ian Read, stated that the company’s animal health and nutrition businesses were better off outside Pfizer, and that the potential of large revenues from emerging markets to counter lost revenues from blockbuster patent expirations — so key to remarks just two years previously — was no longer a major strategic element. Abbott CFO Thomas Freyman provided lots of details, which he dutifully read, about the planned split of the company into two — pharmaceutical and medical products companies — but failed to answer the obvious question on the minds of listeners: “What was the compelling argument for this decision?” And GSK’s CFO Simon Dingemanns strongly asserted the need that finance drive decisions and become embedded in decision making at his company, a comment both unexpected and somewhat unnerving to some in the audience.

AstraZeneca’s CFO Simon Lowth provided a change of themes as he placed the importance of partnering as a primary plank of his pitch. He portrayed AZ as a “focused, innovation-driven, integrated global biopharmaceutical company.” Lowth’s presentation was engaging as well as refreshing as he addressed the strategic solutions selected by AZ to meet the challenge of a changing macro and industry environment. These included early payor and regulatory involvement in drug development to secure reimbursement and market access, the implementation of new marketing and sales technologies as well as new channels of communication with customers.

NIH Director Francis Collins was perhaps the conference’s “inspirational speaker”, however. He provided some of the passion of past years’ biotech entrepreneur presentations as he shared his excitement for the profusion of new science and described objectives of new NIH Institutes and a $140 million dollar partnership between NIH and DARPA to develop a chip-based approach to drug toxicity. Unexpectedly, former FDA Commissioner Mark McClelland, in a luncheon presentation on Wednesday, also gave hope for some good coming from the Affordable Health Act. He stated strongly that “the law was very unlikely to go away.” He foresaw 2012 as a very important year for financial discussions focused much more on the “value” of health care, regulatory reforms and more effective health care.

The Chinese track offered registrants the chance to hear presentations by new Chinese companies and ask questions of top managers from key companies like Simcere, Biogene and Wuxi. There were inquiries about company business plans and hurdles management faced in China, but whether or not the founders were concerned that the government might take possession of their products and technologies as they have in other industries and whether or not the lack of the rule of law in China was a major worry to them were questions left unasked.

The lack of sufficient funding for new start-ups, perhaps the largest “elephant in the room” and a major cause of feelings of uncertainty among entrepreneurs, also went unaddressed. Yet it was the focus of many quiet conversations in the hallways. Start-up company founders and supporters shared experiences of finding the “VC wells dry,” greater difficulty in winning NIH grants and scrambling to line up alternative funding sources. Some looked to other conferences in town for answers to these important questions.

McCallister noted that healthcare institution-affiliated attendees in the audience at the 30^th Annual JP Morgan Healthcare conference, where he delivered his comments, might not be pleased to hear about this particular goal. But the problem, according to McCallister, is that one in five hospitalizations end up being readmitted in 30 days, often due to social or environmental factors, such as imperfect living conditions for dealing with health issues. “They’re tripping over pets and rugs,” or they need ramps, said McCallister. If seniors can feed and bathe themselves, they ought to be at home, he said.

The Humana Cares program, launched in February 2009, has decreased hospital readmissions by 48 percent for members, and has decreased medical claims costs by 22 percent. Emergency room visits have dropped by 22 percent, according to a company statement. The program, developed to help facilitate access to care for seniors, and to provide a more holistic approach to treating chronic illness, will be expanded in 2012, said McCallister. To that end, Humana announced its intent to acquire Senior Bridge, a New York-based company providing in-home care, last November. McCallister called Senior Bridge a perfect fit, given its network and relationship with seniors.

In addition to preventing hospitalizations, Humana has also set a corporate goal of outperforming Medicare by 15% across the board, on average, in terms of overall expense. On the topic of accountable care organizations (ACOs), McCallister suggested that the program could indeed help to address the cost problem in the U.S., but that many physicians had already joined similarly designed programs with Humana and others. Doctors that want to be in ACOs, that understand how they work, have already gotten involved, he said.

With respect to U.S. healthcare reform in general, McCallister called the individual mandate “too weak,” but said that overall, from a business perspective, healthcare reform is “pretty clear…it looks pretty good.” McCallister will hand the company reins over to Bruce Broussard, formerly CEO of McKesson Specialty Care, after a transition period.

Originally a nursing home and hospital company, Humana spun off its institutional assets (into Galen Healthcare, now a part of HCA) in 1993, in favor of the health insurance business. Humana is “one of the big two national players” in Medicare Advantage, according to McCallister.

Long before the current debate on health care started, there was a different war brewing. For decades, people have been fighting over which program and plan is best: healthcare provided to government workers, military personnel or civilians?

While this debate will likely continue, it’s time to explore exactly what these health care options entail. By taking a closer look at factors such as eligibility, costs, and limitations on where health care can be received or administered, we’ll have a better understanding of what each type of health care offers.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR WHAT PLAN

Government Workers

Health Care Plan: The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan

Eligibility: Civilians and the families of those who work in offices associated with the United States government

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is an extensive system of insurance companies that provide benefits to federal and state employees and their families. Different health insurance plans are included in this system as well as varying levels of deductibles, coverage, and premiums. The insurance is provided through a regional health insurance company.

Military Personnel

Health Care Plan: TRICARE

Eligibility: Active duty or retired military personnel and their families, surviving members of military personnel who were harmed or killed while on duty

TRICARE provides health care coverage to military personnel and their families. Three options are available to choose from. They are pay-per-service, flexible health care coverage, and exclusive coverage by military hospitals and health care centers.

Civilians

Health Care Plan: Varies between individually purchased plans or employer-based plans

Eligibility: Anyone who meets the insurance company’s eligibility requirements. Requirements can vary but usually include not having specific pre-existing conditions. Employment-based plans may require working a certain number of hours per week or a certain length of time employed.

Civilians have the opportunity to purchase health care plans directly from an insurance company or may have the option to join an employer-provided insurance plan.

THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH EACH PLAN

Government Workers

Cost for the plan per year: NPR reported hat Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the average federal worker pays about $4,000 for family coverage.

Costs for Premiums: Typically the government employer will pick up two-thirds while the employee is responsible for the other third.

Costs for Co-Pays/Deductibles: Co-pays and deductibles will vary depending upon the plan and can range from flat fees for specific services to a percentage.

While the co-payments and deductibles associated with the Federal Employees Health Plan may vary, the real benefit comes in the amount of money the employer puts up for the insurance. Two-thirds of the cost is paid for by the federal or state government, and the employee is responsible for only the remaining one-third and any costs associated with their specific health care needs.

Military Personnel

Cost for the plan per year: Gates also said the cost for Tricare for a family is $460.

Costs for Premiums: Depends on which of the three plans are chosen and ranges from an annual enrollment fee to $0.

Costs for Co-Pays/Deductibles: Depends on the plan. Costs can range from a flat service fee where the difference is picked up by the patient, to no out-of-pocket costs for attending a military hospital or provider.

The military’s TRICARE plan has a variety of options that can meet the needs of the servicemen and women. The military will cover the cost of the health care except in cases where there is an enrollment fee. Fees for services rendered such as office visits, hospital stays and prescriptions will vary depending upon which plan is selected and can range from costing virtually nothing to having to pay if the visit goes over a set fee.

Civilians

Cost for the plan per year: In 2009, the average cost of health care per person was $7,960, according to PBS.

Costs for Premiums: Whether you have employer-based or self-paid health insurance, the premiums a civilian pays will vary from 0 to 100% of the overall cost.

Costs for Co-Pays/Deductibles: Varies depending upon the selected plan and can range from flat rates, 100% of the fees covered for high premium plans or paying a percentage of the health care costs.

Civilians have a wide selection of health plans available. They can choose to buy into high premium plans where the out-of-pocket health care costs will be extremely low or they can select plans where they pay per service, or a percentage of the health care costs. In some cases once the deductible has been met there are no out-of-pocket expenses but this depends on the plan and insurance company.

LIMITATIONS ON WHERE HEALTHCARE CAN BE RECEIVED

Government Workers

Health Care Options: Flexible options of in-network and out-of-network doctors.

Government workers have very flexible health care insurance options. The Federal Employees Health Plan allows them to select doctors within the network for a lower rate. Should they choose to go out-of-network for a doctor or specialist, they pay the difference in price.

Military Personnel

Health Care Options: Flexible in-network or out-of-network doctors, or a strict network with a health care manager.

With TRICARE, military personnel have an opportunity to choose where they receive their health care. The Prime option of TRICARE only covers visits to approved civilian health centers or military treatment facilities while the Standard option offers freedom to choose a doctor or specialist and pay only the difference in fees.

Civilians

Health Care Options: Varies depending on plan and insurance company.

The civilian plans include a variety of options on where to receive health care. Some plans will only cover visits to in-network doctors or hospitals, while others allow a more flexible choice. When it comes to seeing a specialist, some plans require a referral while others allow self-referral and still cover the cost.

Conclusion

There are so many different types of health care offered that it’s difficult to pinpoint which one is superior. However, consumer surveys have been done to evaluate who’s happy with their health care providers and coverage. For example, the Army Times reported that the National Committee for Quality Assurance gave the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan an 87% satisfaction rating in 2006 (22 percentage points higher than the national average).

Furthermore, survey results from the polled Federal Employees Health Benefit users are available online, broken down by type of plan and location. The responses consist of above average, average, and below average. You can find the 2005 results here. As you can see, a lot of the satisfaction and overall happiness with any type plan comes down to the specifics, which is probably why it’s been difficult to call any certain type of insurance a clear winner.

Soliant Health is a healthcare staffing agency.

In 2011, the patient’s clout as a stakeholder was firmly established, as reflected in several industry conferences. What’s next for the patient in 2012?

In 2011, many healthcare organizations came around to the idea that patients should be included in discussions that had customarily taken place about them, but without their direct participation. This shift was evident at several healthcare conferences last year, and bodes well for 2012 as a year when further overtures – and partnerships – will be formed with and between patients.

Health2.0

The Health2.0 conference in San Francisco brought a deluge of innovation and shiny, new healthcare applications. Data plus IT and innovation represent the future of healthcare, and individual patients are a critical component of this equation (not just their data). This was a key theme of the Health2.0 conference. “Patient stories” have often been highlighted at conferences, and used as bookends to infuse a dose of reality to educational sessions.  What impressed me about the Health2.0 conference was the inclusion of patients and caregivers in the conversations, allowing for bi-directional exchange. Patients2.0, an offshoot of Health2.0, is a movement that aims to revolutionize healthcare delivery around the patients. The goal is to leverage the Health2.0 phenomenon and develop a hub for patients to exchange experiences through peer-to-peer networks, to obtain information, and most importantly, to have a collective voice in healthcare decision-making. By sharing stories, co-creating health data, and aggregating issues across the healthcare spectrum, the voices of Patients2.0 are empowered to be part of the larger conversation, and to exert influence on the health system by shaping future policy. Patients are the new healthcare disruption that can help transform the landscape, and using forums such as Health2.0 to involve them every step of the way is truly ahead of the curve.

Epatient Connections

The key theme at the Epatient Connections, held in Philadelphia, was that “Healthcare is Social.” Physician, medical and patient communities are forming connections through various social media channels, but there are a still a few less progressive entities a step behind as they figure out how to navigate uncharted regulatory waters. As connections are made, patients are becoming further engaged in their care as they learn from what others are doing. The key is to take those connections one-step further and bridge the various pockets of connection. There needs to be further inter-connectivity between patient voices, scientific publications, medical results and records, and medical education geared towards healthcare professionals, and these need to set the stage for a longitudinal data set. Patient engagement tools that were showcased included everything from health management tools to game-ification that integrated feedback mechanisms and incentives to an Internet enabled robotic telepresence, allowing immobile patients to interact with their healthcare community.

SXSH Unconference

The SXSH Unconference also took place in Philadelphia (Sharing, Exchanging, Social Health). Todd Park, CTO, US Department of Health & Human Services opened up the conference with an introduction to the Data Liberation initiative: New Incentives+ Information Liberation= Rocket Fuel for Innovation. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran’s Administration represent the largest repository of public health data in the world. Patient data liquidity and information about the public health, stripped of personal identification, is being made available so that innovators can use it to create health-maximizing options.

2012

2011 was a year where a foundation for the “patient voice” was established as a critical component of the healthcare system. 2012 will be an even more important year, as healthcare organizations empower more patients by personalizing communications for individual patients. Patients are often overwhelmed with the amount of information they must retain to successfully manage their health. How will healthcare organizations come together to simplify navigation of the healthcare system? How will different healthcare systems, records and applications that serve different purposes connect with one another to prevent redundancy? How will patient stories be further synthesized and culminated into “patient issues” that a roundtable of healthcare sectors can further troubleshoot at future conferences? If 2011 was the year of dipping toes in the waters of “patient engagement” …2012 should be the year of swimming alongside others towards a unified goal—a year of patient engagement through an open network of inter-connectivity.

Sarah Krüg is CEO/executive director of CANCER101, a patient outreach and advocacy organization. She is also president-elect of The Society for Participatory Medicine.