The Economist Speaks on Consumer Created Health

It looks like the argument that consumer created health is "Unsafe" isn't holding water with patients, or less stodgy doctors. Indeed, according to the Economist, mistakes posted online are typically corrected within two hours as a result of the number of people reviewing them. Loyal readers will recognize this principle as Linus' Law named after the man behind the Linux open source movement. The economist also notes that patients today frequently know more about their conditions than their doctor. I would argue that this evidence is quite damning for medical schools, such as Stanford, that STILL teach young med students that fully informing their patients of risks and alternatives is unnecessary and a waste of their time. Indeed, one has to wonder how long before consumer created health care brings the unsoundness of many clinical practices into full public consciousness. The Economist article can be found here.

Three Great Blogs on Consumer Health

Here are three great places to go if you want to hear the future of patient-empowerment. Clearly, accountability for the AMA, pharmaceutical companies, and individual Dr.'s is on its way. With the rise of Google Health and MS Health Vault, it is clear that consumers will finally begin to get the info that they need to demand accountability. The question in my mind is what the backlash will look like once Americans come to see just how corrupt our current medical system actually is. Much of the abuse that hospitals and Dr.'s commit will not stand up to the coming public scrutiny. I think that many currently smug and elitist Dr.s and insiders are about to feel very uncomfortable with the public outrage coming their way.

---

http://projecthealthdesign.typepad.com/

http://www.ced.org/

http://e-caremanagement.com/

---

Great number quantifying Big Pharm's problems

---

This article from the Chicago Tribune has lots of good stats for the revenue issues facing Big Pharma as a result of patent expirations. One has to wonder why Big Pharma is slow to embrace Systems and Information Theory, given all the incentive to come up with something new in order to increase top line.

---

Great reference for the future of Nanotech

Wow, I've sure been a bum! Actually, I've been busy as heck networking and researching. I met a great guy over at SRI in Menlo Park who is deeply interested in molecular manufacturing. He even got to paper-signing stage for a strat-up, but the VC backed out at the last minute. His point echoes the newsletter author in my last post. Apparently, the VCs were circling around looking for their next kill after the tech bust. Most of them jumped on the Web 2.0 bandwagon and left nanotech. My contact told me that most of the VCs he met had no basis for evaluating technology whatsoever. He said the few very notable exceptions recognized the investment in basic research that remained. My two cents worth: Because there is so much money on Sand Hill Rd, the smart and established money with institutional clients will move into nanotech where the entrepreneurs are eager and the competition is scarce. Why not move out to a five year time horizon given the potential of the innovations and the fact that institutions would have to re-invest the money anyways.

For a great and comprehensive view of the coming Nano-revolution: check out this comprehensive Road Map over at the Foresight Institute.