SPONSORED POST
By ANN MOND JOHNSON
I’ve worked in enough start ups to know that creating
something from nothing can be hard. It is especially tough when you must create
a market and explain to people that what you’re doing isn’t nearly as heretical
as it may sound. When my friends and I started Subimo in 2000, people wondered
why they’d use our product to learn about hospital performance when (in their
words) all they really needed was to have their doctor to tell them which
hospital they should use. What people eventually realized was that there is
variation in outcomes by hospitals and even by service lines within hospitals.
That’s why the recent spate of articles about the newly
emerging direct-to-consumer companies in health care – the ones that are
condition-specific like HIMS, Ro and Keeps – fascinate me. These are companies
that have leveraged all we know about direct-to-consumer marketing and have identified
an unmet market need. In some respects, they’re not dissimilar from companies
like Simple Contacts or 1.800 Contacts or Visibly – companies that offer a
convenient way for people to get what they need (in this case, good vision). Or
companies that offer behavioral health services directly to consumers.
What do these companies have in common? Aside from a strong marketing
foundation, they have identified a market need that can be met with a new
approach that leverages technology. They are convenient, offer a high level of
customer service and may even be easier to work with than traditional players.
Does it mean they’re practicing bad medicine? No. Just as
the pioneers in telehealth did before them (American Well, MD Live, Teladoc
Health) I suspect they employ great physicians who are energized about the
prospect of helping more people in a targeted and direct fashion. These
organizations describe detailed processes and protocols equipping their
clinicians to screen for conditions or medications that are contraindicated. While
I am not a clinician, by all accounts, they adhere to the same guidelines we
expect to find in traditional settings. And the possibility of forgetting to
ask certain questions may even be reduced because of their use of technology. In
the case of vision companies, they’ve performed thousands of refractions and virtual
eye exams without incident. And in the case of behavioral health, we know that
virtual can be as good if not better than face-to-face.
What these companies have done is use the promise of telehealth to reimagine how care can be delivered. Before we rush to judgment about their clinical capabilities, let’s better understand how they work. Our opportunity as an association, as researchers and as an industry is to ensure that when people use their services, they know it is safe, effective and appropriate. These goals are no different from what each of us want and deserve from every healthcare provider, virtual or not. Let’s see how we can partner and learn from them – just as we should with other new entrants (Walmart, Amazon, Apple) – and focus on improving access and quality and reducing cost and clinician burnout so that everyone gets care where and when they need it. While telehealth is not a panacea, it is a powerful tool and an important means to achieving what we all should have.
Continue the conversation at ATA19 happening April 14 – 16 in New Orleans!
Ann Mond Johnson is the CEO of the American Telemedicine Association (ATA).
