Practice Fusion is a startup making waves in the health 2.0 market. The product is a free, web-based EMR (electronic medical record) system for physicians. It runs in the browser and has been marketed as a 'Google Apps for doctors', providing patient management, scheduling, secure email and more.
The business model is largely serving ads, which allows the product to be free - although users can pay $250 $100 per month for an ad-free version. The company has just announced it has signed up 1,300 medical professionals since launch in November of 2007 and is currently serving "more than a quarter million patients."
Online healthcare is a market with some big-spending competitors - including Google Health, Microsoft's Healthvault and Revolution Health. Although as we'll see below, Practice Fusion is a different product to those of Google and Microsoft. The key difference is in the target market: Practice Fusion is for professionals (doctors), while the big guns are targeting consumers.
Apart from the ads, Practice Fusion also makes money by selling anonymized patient and doctor data from its system to third parties. Before the privacy advocates among us have heart attacks, the company says that it in both business models, it maintains strict privacy standards - in particular HIPAA compliance (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). In a recent New York Times article, Practice Fusion CEO Ryan Howard stated that their system doesn't collect "the names or other personally identifiable information of patients".
In terms of the technical side of Practice Fusion, Adobe evangelist and all-round RIA expert Ryan Stewart looked into it back in March. After noting that it uses Adobe's Flex in the user interface, Ryan pointed out that historically EMR software has been expensive and painful:
"...there are huge costs associated with adding an EMR system. The major players; Misys and Nextgen cost a ton of money and manpower to implement. Practice Fusion on the other hand, is free, browser-based and has a relatively low barrier to entry."
In a separate post, ZDNet's Dan Farber also mentioned Cerner, Epic Systems and IDX as examples of old-school competitors that cost tens of thousands of dollars per seat.
Ease of use is to the fore in Practice Fusion's promotion materials; the company claims that users will be up and running in just 5 minutes ("live in five"). There's not much argument from us that a low-cost, streamlined browser service like Practice Fusion has a lot of potential. Although it will face the same issues that Google Apps has in the office software market - security, scalability, whether it's appropriate to host sensitive data in the cloud, and so on. Practice Fusion is targting small physician practices, which indicates that there's a long way to go before its solution will be viable for larger organisations, such as hospitals.
For more details about the Practice Fusion product, check out this article on healthcare epistemocrat.
One of the interesting differences between how Practice Fusion is marketing its product and how Google is marketing Google Health, is in how they view the 'users'. Google CEO Eric Schmidt raised the ire of Practice Fusion's management in a recent speech at HIMMS. Advisory board member Graham Walker scolded Dr Schmidt in a blog post:
"Please stop calling patients consumers. Patients are people with illnesses or injuries who need medical care; consumers are people who purchase goods or services and are informed about what they're purchasing. (Most patients are not actively dictating what health care resources they're consuming.) Note: there are certainly consumers of health information, but a person who comes to me seeking medical attention is not a consumer. He or she is a patient."
Walker also claims that "the medical record is not the patient's property." He thinks that the model to use for the medical record in the Web era is 'shared control' - i.e. "the patient controls who sees the information in their medical record, but the patient's physician controls the actual information."
It does appear that Practice Fusion is a physician-centered tool, whereas Google Health and the other bigco services are consumer-centered - sorry, patient-centered. So I'm not sure it's accurate to portray Practice Fusion as a competitor to Google Health. Regular people can't even use Practice Fusion, it's a product for doctors and their staff.
It's good to see that a simple, web-based office management service is ramping up well in the health sector. But it's early days yet and the product hasn't made a splash in big markets.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
And in not being open to "regular" people the market for their advertising-based model is considerably smaller, but presumably also more targeted. In many parts of the world, for example, you cannot directly advertise prescription-only medicines to consumers/ patients. So maybe that's where they think the money is, if pharmaceutical companies are willing to part with it. I would be rather concerned about the future-proofing/ interchangeability of collected data and the level of real-world support I could expect from a "free" system provider. Over 10 years I've used a variety of clinical systems which have cost a lot (with ongoing subscriptions for the practices) and developer responsiveness to end-user requests and general support has been on the whole poor—and that's under contract!
But the "regular" people aren't left out of managing their own health data either—if they have iPhones. There are now plenty of health and fitness-related tools for non-medics too in less than a month of the App Store opening:
http://www.bioneural.net/2008/07/31/medical-and-health-app-bonanza-for-iphone/
I think this is where the real money lies. Imagine being able to record your blood pressure, glucose, weight, symptom frequency, medication use and other variables on your iPhone along with health diary entries, then upload this in XML via a server that your physician can access to download your data into his/ her own clinical system for analysis.
BTW consumers are also patients; they just don't know it yet.
Posted by: Bruce | August 5, 2008 3:17 AM
"Patient" and "consumer" are both patronizing. Call a customer a customer.
Posted by: Don Marti | August 5, 2008 7:10 AM
The link to ZDNet article was written over a year and half ago. I wonder how many customers have they been able to acquire during this period of time. I also noticed from their website that the charged for physicians who is not willing to have ads is decreased from $250 to $100.
Posted by: plin | August 5, 2008 1:17 PM
plin, good spotting, I have updated the figure to $100 p/mth. Re customer numbers, the figures quoted at the top of this post are the very latest, as they came via email this week from the CEO.
Posted by: Richard
|
August 5, 2008 1:40 PM
Just to let everyone know. I work for Doclopedia, a company around since 2005 and we have built a site for both the doctors and the consumers or patients if you will. We believe the best way to do this is give patients a free medical record, while also giving them the choice of which doctors can see it and add to it. We are also working on providing a marketplace where doctors list their cash pricing for all the services they offer. Ultimately we are big fans of Practice Fusion even though we were started before they were, and we are also happy that Google and Microsoft are in the water. The more companies working at provding quality health care to the public the better.
Posted by: Charles Spannagel | August 14, 2008 1:44 PM