Quote from: molecularman on October 08, 2017, 11:53:27 PM

Honestly, it makes zero sense to me.

I am able to log into my system at the hospital - find patient records, document, bill, etc. Why do I need a tokenized system to do the same thing?

Granted, the real challenge is cross-hospital systems. Hospital A uses X system, Hospital B uses Y system. The patient's medical info gets printed off and manually entered in that scenario. But a blockchain system doesn't change that if not every hospital utilizes it. Especially in situations with more rural hospitals that use very basic systems.

The fact that Hospital A uses X system, and that Hospital B uses Y system is in fact the exact problem. As described in the response below, there is a global shift toward what is called "Value based care" where providers are paid based on the outcomes of the patient (with some systems farther along than others). Value based care drives the need to be able to see the patient data in aggregate, regardless of which system the hospital uses. The fact that reimbursement is tied to providers working together is key -- interoperability is a business issue not a technology issue in healthcare. Countless articles on it, but in short, if there is no financial incentive or shared financial gain for sharing data, providers and health insurance companies don't share data. As a former Strategic Planner for the 6th largest hospital system in the US, I was baffled by this -- it's in the best interest of the care of the patient to share data. BUT sharing data affects market share (I know... healthcare is a business too...it sounds weird). And, affecting market share, especially in locations where there is a lot of competition, and margins are tight already, means they won't share data unless they have to. As stated below, just like any product or program, 100% adoption will not happen on day 1. Our platform and tech is for those that are in these risk based contracts right now, and are looking for solutions - now. This is a $300B+ market exploding over the next 5 - 10 - 15 years.

Also, the way we've designed our first applications do not require all hospitals to use our system, as you imply. This was very strategic and intentional after I studied for months reading and interviewing others on why Health Information Exchanges failed in the US. (See above comment about data interoperability and data sharing being a business issue not a technology issue.)

[Pasting other response here] On Point, IPKiss!! Thank you. In addition, the data sharing piece is just the beginning, and, if you look at where healthcare is going globally, the trend is toward what is called "value based care" (our niche focus) where payment is based on outcomes and patient recovery, not number of procedures/stuff the docs do. Specifically in the US, just as IPKiss said, the providers are financially penalized for not sharing data or coordinating care. I read the 1200+ page MACRA ruling, and if you look at where that legislation is going in 3,5 to 7 years, it completely hinges on providers coordinating care and sharing data. Private insurance (Aetna, United Health, etc.) always follow in the Federal Government's footsteps -- this market, in the US alone, is $300B worth of payments tied to value based care. And it's a massive paradigm shift in healthcare. Tons of research showing that existing tech systems are inadequate to support docs in this new payment reform.

Data sharing is just the beginning, though. We are already developing smart contracts for insurance payment distribution with one of the nation's leading health insurance companies. A tokenized system provides limitless opportunities for other developers, too, that leverage the open source Health Nexus protocol, and for us as a company to continue to build applications.

Also, it is important to note - re rural hospitals - that, just like any other product, ours will not be rolled out to 100% of the providers globally immediately. Adoption of technology is over time - and those providers that are ready and in need adopt faster.

Case in point, we had a customer meeting yesterday (very large hospital system in the north eastern part of the US) and we are moving ahead with them re our platform. Their need is immediate, they see the value, they're ready.

In the US, there is, as IPKiss said, again - Federal legislation that requires the adoption of electronic systems for patient tracking.

Globally, there are places that are more advanced than others. However, the opportunity is vast. For example, our advisor, Dr. John Halamka of Harvard and one of the top hospitals in the US, is leading a project with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to bring blockchain-based healthcare solutions to Africa. One could argue that Africa uses very basic systems, if at all. However, with technology that is designed correctly and cost effectively, adoption is not a problem. We're proud to have Dr. Halamka as an Advisor to share his learnings on this project, and to guide us as we continue to grow and develop.