The difference between the means and the end in Digital Health

Lots has been said about Digital in general and digital health in particular over the past couple of years. Earlier this year, the definition, or rather the confusion, of what “digital health” is, was one of the main themes of the 38th annual healthcare conference held by JP Morgan.

Working in the field of healthcare innovation as an operator, consultant and an independent evaluator of public life sciences funding programs and investments, I have had the privilege to gain access and insight into many digital health projects and companies.

The distinction I like to make, in any field for that matter, is that between the means and the end. In other words – is the “Digital” part of digital health the goal? Or is it just a channel and tool, a means to an end?

I would claim it is the latter. Digital is a channel and a way of application for innovative ideas but the end goal should always be the impact on the patient and on the medical staff. It is the people these solutions serve that should never be forgotten.

When the “digital” becomes the end (doing digital for the sake of digital) it belittles the innovation, the impact and makes it just another buzz or hype.

How I evaluate digital health projects

When I look at a new project that falls under the category or classification of “digital health” I always begin by asking “who is the affected person”. The answer to this question is always “patients”, of course, but something it is also “medical personnel”. You see, digital health solutions often come in the shape of platforms that serve both the caregiver and the patient. You could say that in most cases there is some aspect of communication involved in these solution, whether it is the communication between people (patient-doctor for example) or the communication of data (patient-data-doctor) or both.

The next question is inevitably “what’s missing from the communication or the experience of these people”. The answer to this question would be the actual idea and the innovation behind the project.

The third question, and the order is important (!) is “does a digital application facilitate the solution? Do we really need it to be digital to make it better?” Here it’s a simple “yes” or “no” answer. If yes – then the project is on the right track to solve a real human problem and make human life better with digital means. If the answer is “no”, however, then we have a problem. We have a problem because we have a project that doesn’t necessarily have to be digital (in definition and/or application), but that was defined as such and built as such….why? To go with the flow? To be trendy?

To sum up I suggest the following steps to the process of evaluating a digital health project:

1.      Who does it serve? Who will gain impact (positive!) from this idea?

2.      What does it solve? What’s the challenge?

3.      Does it need to be digital or can it be solved in another way?

Better healthcare innovation means not falling into the trendy traps

Innovation is not an easy feat at all. In healthcare innovation is tenfold harder due to regulatory constraints and privacy issues. The worst thing any entrepreneur can do is to fall into the trap of being trendy. The real innovative ideas that become unicorns, the ones that successfully commercialize services and ideas, are always the ones that remember the most sacred element of all – the human being.

I guess you can say that the difference between necessary and unnecessary healthcare innovation is the same as between the approaches of “human-first” and “digital-first”.

As long as we develop digital means just for the sake of "being digital", hopes of real innovation and positive impact fade away.

Where the real trap lies for Digital Health startups - the Business Model

The biggest risk with falling into the traps I mentioned above is neglecting the most challenging and important part for any startup company - the business model. With Digital Health ventures this is even more challenging because the business models can be confusing.

First, we have to determine who pays - who's the using client of the service or product and who is the paying client? Often we will have more than one "client" (patients and doctors to name the obvious) but some will be only using the solution, while others will be paying for it (hospitals, insurance companies, HMOs etc.). Therefore, we need to carefully think of the pricing, the growth and scalability and of the marketing of the digital health solution.

Here too, falling into the honey-trap of the trendy buzzwords can be the make or break of a business. Emphasizing things like "AI", Machine learning or Deep learning can be very attractive to investors but speak less to the people who will end up using the solution. They don't care about the "digital" and the "tech" part of it, they need it to be seamless, effective and provide relief or cure.

The same "human-first" approach I mentioned before is what should guide entrepreneurs in determining their business and pricing models for digital health solutions. Otherwise we see pricing and business models that may fit software solutions (in other words "digital"), but not health solutions.

All that is not to say I am against anything digital. Quite the opposite! I believe technology has opened so many doors for innovators and researchers and digital channels are wonderful avenues to connect research and practical application. All I am saying is we need to do it right and we must always remember the end does not always justify the means.