3 challenges Apple faces in path to widespread adoption of health record feature

Feb. 8, 2018

Last week kicked off with the announcement of a partnership between Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan to form an independent healthcare company for their employees, a vague yet economy-shaking piece of news that signaled a shift in how serious these corporations are about disrupting the industry.

This news alone would be significant enough, but in an effort to truly bring healthcare to the front pages, Apple also announced that they’ve partnered with 12 health systems to beta test a Health Records feature that gives people the ability to access their medical records.

It signals that Apple, is making investments into consumer-driven healthcare. As long-time and sincere advocates for people having access to their complete medical histories, we see Apple’s move into healthcare as a great signal to everyone (health systems, patients, and providers) that they’re investing time and resources into building infrastructure for patients to get transparency into their healthcare information. Though this isn’t a direct move to solve interoperability, it’s a stepping stone toward making patient-owned data a reality.

While this development is encouraging, there have been many attempts and failed experiments with patient portals. The underlying issue is that patients typically don’t care about their healthcare information outside an episode of treatment or an acute setting. The encouraging thing about Apple’s approach is that users can be passively engaged – they’ve partnered with EHR vendors, health systems, and service providers to tackle the interoperability problem and get data, albeit a limited number of locations, into the portal without the need for manual labor.

Sustained user engagement—and a clear value to users—has often been a brick wall that stops products from gaining traction, but with the ability to bypass this wall entirely, Apple’s approach could have real legs.

There are three main issues Apple (and any outside player) could run into the following:

– Adoption is always slower than expected in healthcare: It’s estimated that new treatments take around 17 years to be adopted. Maybe it’s the risk-averse nature of an industry whose primary objective is to do no harm; maybe it’s because doctors are too busy with burgeoning patient panels to keep up with new technologies. In either case, innovative techniques and tools are not being quickly adopted. Apple is making the bet that their massive consumer base accelerates or skips these otherwise lengthy adoption cycles. Will Apple’s offering find a different route that produces the desired (and necessary) traction quickly enough?

– The issue of network density: This is perhaps the biggest issue facing Apple: can they get network density such that a user can reasonably believe that his or her complete medical history is accounted for, regardless of where care occurred? If not, partial coverage may hinder adoption of the platform and prevent applications built on top of it to get traction.

The reason that this is such a big issue is due to the fragmented nature of our healthcare system-patients, especially those who could benefit from Apple’s tool the most, likely require care at a handful of institutions. If a patient who sees a primary care doctor at one organization but visits a specialist in another wants to compile data from both practices, they’re potentially out of luck. Without the functionality to sync data from multiple locations, the ability to obtain a truly cohesive and useful view medical data is limited.

– Current integration is very basic: The current scope of this new tool only provides a read-only snapshot of patient data from one institution – that is, patients cannot input their own data. While provider-reported information is useful and does provide value, it only represents one half of the patient-physician equation. Beyond that, provider-reported information like Apple seeks to provide is already available to patients via existing patient portals.

Why does this make sense for Apple?

Despite the looming challenges, it’s clear that Apple is committed to this initiative and has stressed that their goal is to give consumers more insight into and control of their health data. In addition, another likely goal is to build a complete experience for people living within the Apple ecosystem.

MedCity News has the full story

Sponsored Recommendations

A Cyber Shield for Healthcare: Exploring HHS's $1.3 Billion Security Initiative

Unlock the Future of Healthcare Cybersecurity with Erik Decker, Co-Chair of the HHS 405(d) workgroup! Don't miss this opportunity to gain invaluable knowledge from a seasoned ...

Enhancing Remote Radiology: How Zero Trust Access Revolutionizes Healthcare Connectivity

This content details how a cloud-enabled zero trust architecture ensures high performance, compliance, and scalability, overcoming the limitations of traditional VPN solutions...

Spotlight on Artificial Intelligence

Unlock the potential of AI in our latest series. Discover how AI is revolutionizing clinical decision support, improving workflow efficiency, and transforming medical documentation...

Beyond the VPN: Zero Trust Access for a Healthcare Hybrid Work Environment

This whitepaper explores how a cloud-enabled zero trust architecture ensures secure, least privileged access to applications, meeting regulatory requirements and enhancing user...