Just came back from an amazing stint at TEDMED, and left struck by a few things:
- Systems must constantly tune the balance of benefits, costs, and risks. Unfortunately, the stakeholders in our health system are generally only thinking about one at a time. This creates much of the inability to communicate and make progress.
- Disruptors don’t have the same chance of winning as in other industries. When you make the hurdles to disrupt too high, you lock in the incumbents.
- Technology is beginning to create some paradigm shifts. The existing structures will likely blow up quickly vs. transition slowly
- The Architecture for Personalized Health will look very different than that for our current system. This will be a focus of an upcoming series on what a transition to personalized health will truly require and who will win and lose.
Related articles
- Exploring What We Don’t Know at TEDMED 2011 (rwjfblogs.typepad.com)
- You say you want a (healthcare) revolution: TEDMED 2011 (oslersbeast.wordpress.com)
- TEDMED Announces Move to Washington, DC; the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts Will Host TEDMED 2012 Conference (prnewswire.com)
- TEDMED Day 1 – Pop It, Lock It, and Take a Statin (medgadget.com)
Comments
Posted On
Nov 01, 2011Posted By
Chuck PellDid #2 say exactly what you meant it to say?
Posted On
Nov 01, 2011Posted By
Vijay Goel, MDChuck, Thanks for the question. Clarified #2 to read: There are great people chasing great ideas out there. Business model issues driving uncertainty around funding those ideas (either through hurdles in raising investment capital or inability to generate predictable and sustainable business models) seems to drive the lack of progress.
What I saw was that the funding models and regulatory models both created substantial hurdles to bringing great technology/ drugs into the market. Clearing this up may reverse the anti-Moore’s law issues with productivity that was discussed in multiple talks.