I always wonder if the people doing the hyping about various health “innovations” actually believe the hype or are just trying to make money in some way. Does that sound too naive or too cynical? Anyway, mobile health apps, while not suffering from a shortage of hype, do suffer from a shortage of research supporting value. Alas, the latest work, from the prestigious Scripps Institute, does nothing to fill the void. (Scripps Study) The authors evaluated use by adults with arrhythmia, hypertension and/or diabetes of a mobile monitoring device, compared to standard disease management for a control group. The tracking data was shared with providers, the device vendor, the health plan, the wellness program and obviously the patient, all to no avail. Over the six month study period there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of utilization or spending. There was minor evidence suggesting some better self-management of health in the intervention group. No work was done on the relative cost of the mobile device and app intervention versus standard disease management. It could be that it is a cheaper way to get the same, but not better, outcomes. I doubt that. It also could be that over a longer period of time, maybe the mobile tracking would show better differentiation. I doubt that even more. So I choose the option that people hyping this stuff are doing it to make money. I sincerely apologize to anyway offended by that and for my cynicism, which at least appears to be supported by the evidence.
Oh no, Mobile Health Isn’t Going to Save the World!
By Kevin RocheJanuary 28, 2016Commentary
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
This is an outstanding report on total global drug spending and trends, with projections out to 2025. It helps you understand this important area of health care, which does much...
June 1, 2021
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Another example of over-priced companies trying to find some way to survive in the post-epidemic financial world. Transcarent, which does something, somehow to “access high quality, affordable care” is buying...
March 6, 2023
In an attempt to swiftly revive two floundering health care companies, a PE firm has announced the merger and recapitalization of Revive Health and SwiftMD. You know they are...
January 30, 2023
Investors have not yet learned their lesson, as Pearl Health gathers a new round of $75 million in capital for its business of supporting physicians who want to participate in...
January 30, 2023
Access ACO Care Management Chronic Disease Comparative Effectiveness Consumer Directed Health Consumers Devices Disease Management Drugs EHRs Elder Care End-of-Life Care FDA Financings Genomics Government Health Care Costs Health Care Quality Health Care Reform Health Insurance Health Insurance Exchange HIT HomeCare Hospital Hospital Readmissions Legislation M&A Malpractice Meaningful Use Medicaid Medical Care Medicare Medicare Advantage Mobile Pay For Performance Pharmaceutical Physicians Providers Regulation Repealing Reform Telehealth Telemedicine Wellness and Prevention Workplace
March 27, 2023
Why You Can’t Trust People Who Make Up Stuff About Vax Safety
A couple of studies offer a far better explanation for heart issues in athletes and…
March 25, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 201
Tired of March Madness? A boringly refreshing dip into some CV-19 research summaries is recommended.
March 24, 2023
The CDC Is a Font of Methodological and Statistical Error
Several times in the last three years I and others have pointed out serious flaws…