8 healthcare applications for Microsoft Kinect, 6 reasons not to pursue them

Microhttp://dri2.img.digitalrivercontent.net/Storefront/Company/msintl/images/English/en-INTL_Kinect_for_Windows_L6M-00001/en-INTL_L_Kinect_for_Windows_L6M-00001_mnco.jpgsoft’s Kinect is absolutely amazing technology. And Microsoft keeps improving it. Did you know that Kinect has multiple potential healthcare applications?

If you have an early teenage or “tween” kid, you probably have an Xbox gaming system. The Kinect sensor technology is perfect for all sorts of innovative interfaces for dance, exercise, and role-playing games.

The Kinect sensors and software have the ability to perform skeletal mapping on multiple people simultaneously, to detect 3D gestures and motions and facial and voice recognition. Kinect can even determine users’ heart rates! The device also has the ability to “see” in the dark with infrared camera technology.

The Microsoft Kinect is an amazing amalgam of sensor technology. I’m sure it has many useful and possibly disruptive applications in healthcare and other industries.

Here’s why you should not base your healthcare product or application on Microsoft’s Kinect:

  1. Single sourcing is risky for any startup business or new product development organization. You have no alternative way to duplicate  or replicate the Kinect functions if Kinect or its key functions are unavailable for any reason.
  2. Healthcare is not Microsoft’s core business – it could remove access at any time and/or de-emphasize it in any number of ways. In fact, Microsoft is in strategic transition right now and its long-time CEO, Steve Ballmer, announced recently that he will be retiring in 2014.
  3. You have no access to the device’s source code – access to that code might be necessary if you are developing an FDA Class II or Class III device.
  4. The Microsoft Kinect is based on a console or PC-centric world view. What about tablets and smartphones? Oh, and don’t expect to ever see an Android or iOS device with Kinect capability.
  5. Although Microsoft has made an SDK available for Kinect development on Windows operating systems, the installed base of 24 million Kinects is almost all in Xbox gaming systems. Microsoft is not interested in giving up valuable real estate on its premier gaming platform to comparatively low volume and low margin healthcare apps. If you develop a Kinect-dependent windows app, you will a). have to wait for an installed base to develop or b). take on the added risk of marketing Kinect hardware to create your own installed base.
  6. You will have little technical support from Microsoft simply because your business potential is small compared to their other ventures.

If those six reasons aren’t enough to give you pause, here are the healthcare market areas identified by MobiHealthNews that are particularly suited for Kinect-enabled applications.

  1. Fitness and Exergaming – games and exercises to get people off the couch and on their feet
  2. Physical Therapy  – conduct PT sessions, monitor recovery
  3. Surgery Support  – hands-free image manipulation
  4. Autism Screening and Therapy – not quite sure what the advantage is here. Perhaps some on the spectrum can’t relate as well to people?
  5. Virtual Visits and Virtual Nurses – automated nursing visits. I think this is a bad idea, as senior shut-ins crave human contact.
  6. Virtual Group Therapy – avatar-based online group talk sessions (I believe you can do this with Google Hangouts as well)
  7. Aging in Place and Fall Prevention – gait analysis and fall prediction
  8. Helping the Blind to Navigate and the Deaf to Communicate – using machine vision and text to speech

Takeaways: It’s incredibly risky to develop new technology that’s based on someone else’s proprietary technology. It’s even more risky if that proprietary technology is primarily focused on non-healthcare applications.

You should consider open source projects as an alternative. There are many open source projects all over the world. If it’s critically important to you, try organizing and starting an open source project to support your development work.

If you must use the proprietary technology, try to negotiate a development agreement that places key parts of the technology in escrow so it is still available to you in the event of a default to the agreement. This tactic doesn’t work with gigantic corporations like Microsoft but it may be effective with smaller partners.

Read more: Eight ways the Microsoft Kinect will change healthcare | mobihealthnews.

How to Get Payors to Pay For Your Medical Device | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

You and your medical device development team have created an exciting new widget. You’re gearing up for a costly product launch. How do you make sure health insurers will reimburse hospitals for purchasing your device?

It’s a very important question because hospitals will not purchase your device unless they are confident that they will receive reimbursement from the payor (insurance company).

If your widget is the same as existing products except it’s cheaper, congratulations. You’ve developed what could be considered a commodity product. You can take advantage of existing reimbursement codes (CPT and DRG) and explain the codes to the physicians and decision-makers at the hospital. You can sell your device on the basis that it saves money.

If you have created a really new widget that is unlike other devices, congratulations again. You’ve developed a differentiated product. Your reimbursement effort is just beginning.

If you haven’t done so yet, now would be a good time to engage with a reimbursement consultant. Perhaps your new widget can fit within existing reimbursement codes. If not, the path will be long and involved to get a new code – a topic worthy of its own post, perhaps even a chapter in a book.

In a discussion at AdvaMed 2013, Alan Muney, chief medical officer at Cigna, said Cigna asks three questions when considering coverage for a new device:

1. Has the new technology been proven by studies in peer-reviewed journals?
2. Has the new technology produced better outcomes than current technologies?
3. Does the new technology produce the same outcomes as current technologies but at a lower cost?

These seem like reasonable questions. Although Dr. Muney did not explicitly say so, I’m assuming that you need only answer “yes” to one of these questions in order to be considered for coverage for your device. The questions all have implications, however.

First, to have a study published in a peer-reviewed journal generally means you must conduct a randomized clinical study with enough statistical “power” to make a definitive conclusion. In this context, “proven” means that the new technology has equivalent or superior clinical efficacy to the existing “gold standard” technology. And you already know that clinical studies are expensive and take a long time to conduct.

Second, “outcomes” are more focused on patient health than on a comparison with other technologies. You will need to conduct a clinical study, but with different endpoints measuring different things. The study may last longer and involve more patients, all of which will cost more money and involve more risk to you, your company, and your investors.

The third question adds costs to the equation, not just the procurement costs of your device but the Big Picture costs: does your technology reduce or increase overall costs to the healthcare system? At this point, you may need to consult with a healthcare economist to determine what to measure and how to measure it. And proving cost claims usually involves conducting a big, expensive clinical study. Of course, if you prove better outcomes at reduced cost to the healthcare system, congratulations again. Your product should be adopted rapidly and your focus will shift to keeping up with demand.

Takeaways: Obtaining medical device reimbursement is complicated and risky. It increases costs and time to market for many medical devices. You can’t go to market without knowing how (or if) your device will be reimbursed by insurers. During your business planning process, you should have an idea as to which of the three questions raised by the Cigna CMO you can positively answer for your device. That response should also help inform the size, cost, and duration of the clinical study you will need to conduct. And that will be an important component of the capital you need to raise for commercialization,

Read more: Cigna CMO Explains How to Get Payors to Pony Up For Your Device | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

FDA finally publishes final guidance for mobile medical apps | mobihealthnews

This has to be welcome news to any company competing in the mobile health market segment. Although the guidance is not binding in typical FDA fashion, it does remove some uncertainty about what the FDA considers mobile software that should fall under Class II (510k) device regulations.

Apparently, lobbying elected officials has some benefit. The story reports that the FDA promised to issue the guidance “in the current fiscal year” in congressional hearings last summer. We are in the last week of the fiscal year and true to the FDA’s word, the guidance is finally issued, two years after the draft guidance was issued.

As one might expect in a “land grab” environment, the absence of regulatory guidance has not been a barrier to market for a number of companies. There have been 100 510(k) marketing clearances issued for mobile medical applications in the past ten years, 40 of which occurred since the draft guidance was issued.

Some companies might have bigger concerns in that they are actively marketing apps that fall under the regulated category but have not obtained 510(k) clearance. Two acne treatment apps were removed from the Apple and Android app stores by the FTC recently.

The guidance treats mobile apps in four broad categories:

  1. Class II apps:

a. Apps that “are intended to be used as an accessory to a regulated medical device – for example, an application that allows a health care professional to make a specific diagnosis by viewing a medical image from a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) on a smartphone or a mobile tablet.”

b. Apps that “transform a mobile platform into a regulated medical device – for example, an application that turns a smartphone into an electrocardiography (ECG) machine to detect abnormal heart rhythms or determine if a patient is experiencing a heart attack.”

2.  Mobile Apps for which FDA intends to exercise “enforcement discretion” (meaning that FDA does not intend to enforce requirements under the FD&C Act).

From the Guidance:

FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion for mobile apps that:

• Help patients (i.e., users) self-manage their disease or conditions without providing specific treatment or treatment suggestions
• Provide patients with simple tools to organize and track their health information
• Provide easy access to information related to patients’ health conditions or treatments
• Help patients document, show, or communicate potential medical conditions to health care providers
• Automate simple tasks for health care providers
• Enable patients or providers to interact with Personal Health Record (PHR) or Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems.

3.  Apps that are not medical devices and thus are unregulated: Apps that provide a means of monitoring and reporting health parameters and activities but that make no claimed benefit. Examples:

a. Mobile apps that are intended to provide access to electronic “copies” (e.g., e-books, audio books) of medical textbooks or other reference materials with generic text search capabilities. These are not devices because these apps are intended to be used as reference materials and are not intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease by facilitating a health professional’s assessment of a specific patient, replacing the judgment of clinical personnel, or performing any clinical assessment.

b. Mobile apps that are intended for health care providers to use as educational tools for medical training or to reinforce training previously received. These may have more functionality than providing an electronic copy of text (e.g., videos, interactive diagrams), but are not devices because they are intended generally for user education and are not intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease by facilitating a health professional’s assessment of a specific patient, replacing the judgment of clinical personnel, or performing any clinical assessment.

c. Mobile apps that are intended for general patient education and facilitate patient access to commonly used reference information. These apps can be patient-specific (i.e., filters information to patient-specific characteristics), but are intended for increased patient awareness, education, and empowerment, and ultimately support patient-centered health care. These are not devices because they are intended generally for patient education, and are not intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease by aiding clinical decision-making (i.e., to facilitate a health professional’s assessment of a specific patient, replace the judgment of a health professional, or perform any clinical assessment).

d. Mobile apps that automate general office operations in a health care setting and are not intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.

e. Mobile apps that are generic aids or general purpose products. These apps are not considered devices because they are not intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.

Takeaways: While the FDA appears to move at a glacial pace in many instances, it eventually responds to market activity. Mobile health is a growing segment and should grow even faster in the coming years.

The trick to escaping regulation under the “enforcement discretion” provision is to avoid making diagnoses or recommendations for treatment. If your app/device interfaces with a class II device or provides diagnostic or therapeutic information or suggestions, you are going to need a 510(k).

 Read more:

FDA finally publishes final guidance for mobile medical apps | mobihealthnews.

Get the FDA Guidance here:

 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM263366.pdf

Startups beware. A potential “death sentence” awaits the uninformed.

A fine example of unintended consequences, the JOBS act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) was supposed to make it easier for startup companies to raise capital and to talk about their financing needs without getting into hot water with the SEC. The law was passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012.

As this GeekWire article points out, the new law has made it somewhat easier for startups to conduct IPOs. Unfortunately, that’s the last thing a startup does before it gets transformed into a public company.

The provisions of the JOBS act can actually jeopardize the fundraising activities of a startup during the critically important early stage, before significant capital has been raised and probably before the companies can afford expensive attorneys to advise them.

The main issue with the JOBS act from a startup perspective is that it has complicated rather than simplified the rules around “general solicitation,” the prohibition against publicly offering equity in the company in exchange for investment. The prohibition applies to participation in pitch events, very common forums where startup CEOs present their pitches to a crowd containing a mixture of people, including (it is hoped) a few angel investors.

At least one Internet-based angel investor “crowdsourcing” site, Poliwogg, is counting on the new law to attract novice angel investors to its online marketplace for healthcare company investment opportunities. It remains to be seen if the details of the regulations have a chilling effect on what could be an important resource for early stage startups and for prospective angel investors.

Dan Rosen, a prominent Seattle angel investor who was interviewed for the GeekWire article, pointed out that the “death sentence” can occur if a startup makes two mistakes regarding general solicitation. The penalty from the SEC is a one year prohibition against fundraising. That would sink most startups.

What’s next? A number of organizations are lobbying for changes to the law or at least a more lenient interpretation by the SEC. Given the polarized climate in Washington, D.C., it may take some time for this issue to be resolved.

Takeaways: Startup CEOs should educate themselves about the provisions of the JOBS act as it applies to them. As the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ve been reading the blog of a Seattle attorney who has a special interest in this matter, William Carleton. You can reach his blog here: http://www.wac6.com/ It’s also wise to engage a corporate attorney who is experienced in startups and startup financing law. Yes it’s expensive but it may be the best insurance you can buy for your startup.

Read more: The messy side of the JOBS act, and the potential ‘death sentence’ for startups – GeekWire.

Top 10 Pitfalls of a 510(k) Submission and How to Avoid Them | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry

The FDA marketing clearance process (never “approval” for a class II or 510(k) device) can be maddeningly ambiguous, time-consuming, expensive, and risky if conducted incorrectly. There are, however, many companies that have a straightforward and relatively easy pre-market notification process. This article in MDDI lists a number of dos and don’ts to help you and your company end up in the latter category.

“Top Ten Pitfalls:”

  1. Misconceptions about 510(k)’s goals. 
  2. Not knowing the regulatory history of your product in the United States.
  3. Choosing the wrong comparison (predicate) device. 
  4. Choosing a predicate that is not available to test. 
  5. Choosing a predicate that is not available in the U.S.
  6. Not understanding (or being able to find) appropriate guidance.
  7. Not starting validation testing.
  8. Errors and inconsistencies in the 510(k). 
  9. Inattention to FDA’s instructions. 
  10. Missing and incomplete forms. 

My experience is that many people new to the 510(k) process misunderstand the FDA’s goals and role in the 510(k) process:

In the 510(k) review process, devices that meet eligibility requirements are “cleared” as opposed to being “approved” by FDA…The requirements and expectations for a properly completed 510(k) have evolved along with medical technology.

…the documentation must show that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared (predicate) device. The device needs to have the same intended use and technical characteristics [as the predicate, but not necessarily the same technology]…The reviewers will also want to see data substantiating that the device’s performance, safety, and effectiveness are equivalent to the predicate.

Here are some of my own recommendations for avoiding FDA pitfalls:

  • Hire a regulatory professional, either a consultant or an FTE. Give special consideration to the regulatory professional’s experience and field of expertise. You want someone who has extensive experience with products in the same regulatory classification and preferably the same medical specialty as your products. If you can’t afford to have the regulatory person manage the entire 510(k) process, negotiate to have them help you with planning and to review all part of the submission as well as any communications with FDA.
  • Don’t second guess or micro-manage the regulatory professional. You should ask questions and have discussions, intense and challenging if necessary, about schedule, budget, indications, predicate device selection, test requirements and plan, clinical study requirements and plan, and so on. Once you have a recommendation, proceed. Trying to force an answer that is satisfactory to you will almost inevitably result in delays and increased expenses. If you find that you are spending a lot of time questioning your regulatory professional’s decisions, it’s probably not a good fit and you should find a new regulatory person.
  • Do not second guess the FDA and do not ignore their questions or recommendations. Also, do not assume that you can rely 100% on their answers to your questions. The FDA will always tell you that their guidance is not a legal opinion and is not binding. As the saying goes, “you pays your money and you takes your chance.”
  • On the other hand, don’t be afraid to ask questions of the FDA. This is particularly true if you fall into the “small manufacturer” category. You can get extra help free of charge from FDA staffers. Once again, however, do not rely exclusively on this guidance.
  • If you are concerned about risk, timing, and/or expense, consider launching your product in another market first. You can generate much-needed cash flow and perhaps even obtain clinical data for your 510(k) submission in places like the EU or a country in South America.

Takeaways: Regulatory submissions and clearances are among the most important milestones in commercializing a medical device. It would be foolish to leave this important function to amateurs or to ignore important recommendations and guidance.

If you are a medical device startup CEO, marketing manager, or product manager and especially if you are without much regulatory experience, be sure to budget for and recruit a highly regarded regulatory professional with experience and expertise in your market and your regulatory classification. The regulatory clearance process is complicated and can be daunting to novices but it can be successfully navigated by engaging experts and by learning and following the rules.

Read more: Top 10 Pitfalls of a 510(k) Submission and How to Avoid Them | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

Obamacare is Changing Market Access | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

Access to the healthcare market is changing for medical device companies, particularly for startups with new technologies and no track record. It’s not clear to me if Obamacare is really the driver or if it’s the larger initiative of “healthcare reform” that’s causing providers and payers to make changes in the way they do business.

In any event, providers such as hospitals have become more demanding of new products and new companies. They want to see evidence of clinical efficacy as well as evidence of economic efficacy (outcomes) before they agree to purchase or in some cases, trial the products. Importantly, payers – private insurers and Medicare – are slowing, reducing, or even denying reimbursement for new products and procedures. The outcomes data is being called comparative effectiveness research. Most current data supplied by industry has been deemed insufficient. Evidence of the increased demand for data is the current emphasis on and support of healthcare IT applications by government entities as well as payers.

The authors of this article argue that responsibility for market access must be broadened to become an integral part of the commercialization process like regulatory clearance and that it should be applied to a broad cross-section of the organization and also throughout the product life cycle. This is a major change in the way that most companies conduct product development and commercialization. It will require executive management involvement and changes to strategic goals and plans to implement and sustain such a change.

For example, it is in the best interests of the organization to create and provide “strong evidence of clinical differentiation.” Not only will the evidence make it easier to get agreement from providers and payers, it also provides a degree of protection against premature commoditization. It’s equally important to lobby government officials, either directly or through a trade group. Finally the organization must be sure to protect itself by retroactively addressing products already in the market, as a demand for data could come at any time and cause significant disruptions to manufacturing, sales, materials management, etc.

Takeaways: Startup CEOs and medical device product managers, project managers, and program managers must incorporate comparative effectiveness research for both clinical efficacy and economic effectiveness into their strategic plans, product development plans, and go-to-market plans. Without outcomes data to demonstrate economic and clinical value (ECV), the risk of a failure at product launch because there are no willing buyers for your product is very high. This can kill a company or a career.

Read more: Obamacare is Changing Market Access | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

Healthcare’s interoperability problem isn’t about technology | MedCity News

So the crux of this problem is that hospitals/institutions/clinicians think they “own” patient data. If we in America ever want to achieve the significant potential savings that could be realized through application of various forms of information technology to the healthcare system, the mindset will have to change. The patient owns his/her patient data.

Big Data, the catchphrase to indicate that every click on the Internet is captured, aggregated, and analyzed, is already in wide use by all sorts of consumer companies, large and small. It works – to reduce costs, to fine tune marketing messages, and to enable highly specific targeting of a company’s best prospects. It works because – except for “walled gardens” like Facebook – the data generated by Internet users is freely available for anyone to use.

There is no reason to think that Big Data won’t work equally well in healthcare. The problem is that healthcare data resides in an enormous number of well-insulated silos. Very few of the silos share anything, even sometimes within an institution.

Consider a patient with several doctors – a primary care physician, a cardiologist, and an endocrinologist. It’s very possible that the three doctors cannot access their patient’s records from their colleagues without special requests and permissions. Sure, they may get test results and written summaries of procedures but the minutiae where much actionable data is hidden is kept locked up in proprietary systems.

Consider a healthcare IT startup that needs (anonymized) patient data to validate its offering and to demonstrate its claimed benefits. It must cut deals with a number of providers to access the data. This takes time and costs money, two things not in abundance at most startups. And yet investors and customers demand proof of beneficial economic outcomes before investing or buying. A classic catch-22 situation.

Yet another example is a medical software startup (now defunct) where I once worked. They developed a terrific 3D image viewer that could run on low-end PCs, tablets, and laptops. At the time, 3D image viewing and manipulation was limited to high end workstations costing tens of thousands of dollars. The company had to negotiate deals with every hospital’s PACS administrator and vendor (there were many) and then write specific software to access the PACS servers. This was not a sustainable business model and the company went broke.

The CEO of HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society) acknowledges the problem. He doesn’t have a ready solution, however but he admits that part of the problem is the way our system reimburses providers for tests and procedures and not for health improvements. He does hint that Medicare will be changing its reimbursement structure over time and that private insurers are sure to follow.

Takeaways: The two buzzwords in this segment are interoperability and portability. It seems to me that an industry standard could be written enabling two-way access to any appropriately anonymized data. In addition, electronic medical records need standards so that users wanting to switch to a different vendor are not held hostage by high switching costs caused by the need to remap data fields, etc. In the modern day Gold Rush of companies looking to make fortunes in healthcare IT, perhaps there is another Levi’s looking to profit by selling shovels and overalls to the miners.

Read more: Healthcare’s interoperability problem isn’t about technology: A Q&A with HIMSS CEO | MedCity News.