@POLITICOEvents Outside | In: “Where do Wearables Fit in MedTech?”
Last week, Gray Street Solutions was thrilled to receive an invitation to POLITICO’s Outside|In event, a panel on wearable technologies (and their consequences).
It’s a much needed debate: How will wearables integrate with meaningful use in the future?
Although the panel discussed the future of medical research and consumer ecosystems, the overall emphasis was on security measures for wearable access. Millions of dollars are being spent building frameworks for electronic medical records (EMRs). FitBits, Apple Watches and the myriad of wearables give consumers the ability to generate their own data for diagnostic purposes.
After a brief introduction from POLITICO editor Arthur Allen (@ArthurAllen202), the focus then jumped to Justus Eapen (@JustusEapen), the “head habit hacker” at the burgeoning Boston startup Pavlok.
Riding high on the tech-blog/crowdfunding buzz, the Pavlok team is developing a wearable that uses electroshock therapy to help people curb undesirable behaviors. Their disruptive service model caused quite a stir in the audience, and evoked contention from fellow panelist, Morgan Reed (@morganwreed).
As executive director of ACT | The App Association, Morgan Reed lobbies on behalf of software companies to propel innovation in government policy.
Though cordial, Morgan and Justus disagreed on both the ideal customer segment for wearables, as well as the primary point-of-vulnerability for health data hackers.
“[It’s like] robbing a bank because that’s where the money is,” Morgan argued. Justus countered that the government should focus on a individuals as a high-value target.
Despite butting heads on marketing strategy and software architecture, they did agree that widespread adoption of wearables is a non-issue. Morgan asked for a show-of-hands from audience who had smartphones in their pockets. Lots of hands were in the air.
Justus believes that the future will involve significantly more sensors implemented in the environment, bolstering the impact of the ever-expanding “Internet of Things” (IoT) without arming the citizenry with Star Trek-esque accessories.
Morgan contends that the ideal customer segment is the aging Baby Boomer cohort, thus enabling these consumers to live at home with dignity for a longer period than ever before. Reminding the audience that Medicare rarely pays for “telemedicine” solutions, Reed asserted that “Congress is failing us.” Not many disagree.
Without a doubt, our favorite panelist was De Mooy, Deputy Director of the Consumer Privacy Project. Describing how banks have an incentive to rectify any fraud on a consumer’s bank account, Mooy raised the question: “Who has this incentive when my health data is stolen?”
What’s more, being transparent with EMRs implies that consumers will have some control over their records. As of now, this is not the case. She raised a few points that sent conversation into a tailspin, asking pressing questions such as:
“What effect will wearables and constant passive data collection have on employee wellness programs?”
“Could an employer theoretically coerce an employee into collecting and sharing their vitals?”
There is a fine line between incentive and punishment, and Mooy argues this distinction is crucial in the construction of policy frameworks considering wearables in MedTech. Fantastic food for thought. We suspect this will be a long standing debate for years to come. And we’re happy to follow along! #longlivewearables
Many thanks to @POLITICOEvents for the invite! We’ll see you next time!
By: Joseph Haaga | Edited by: @RickBurchfield
