3 ms·

> It's not like Google and Microsoft have some sort of magic pixie dust that would allow them to overcome experienced vendors in a brutally competitive market.

> It's not like Google and Microsoft have some sort of magic pixie dust that would allow them to overcome experienced vendors in a brutally competitive market. They have analytics, "moneyball" so to speak. There is a plethora of untapped data in these systems. I've worked with Gesinger in PA and you would not believe how far behind the curve they are and they are often touted to be on the forefront. What needs to happen is getting google or MS into health insurance. They could utilize all the data collected to benefit the patients and make a big profit. Additionally, they have the know how to set up a pharm lab for drug development. Insurance companies really should drive drug development. It makes sense for them to develop drugs for conditions costing them the most amount of money per patient. Instead, they are middle men who have to work with whatever big pharma give them.

nradov 10y ago
I don't think you've been paying attention. All the major payers Health IT vendors have analytics as good as anything at MS or Google, to the point where it's almost becoming a commodity rather than a real differentiator. Yes provider organizations are behind the curve in actually using those tools due to misaligned incentives but adding another vendor to the market won't solve that problem. Payers have no interest in driving drug development. It wouldn't give them any competitive advantage. It's not like they could restrict sales of a new drug to only their own members! And most payers are providing very little "insurance" now anyway. Mostly they just process claims on behalf of self-insured group buyers. And the notion of those companies getting into medical insurance or drug development is just ludicrous. Their corporate boards would laugh the idea out of the room.
- ipunchghosts 10y ago
  > I don't think you've been paying attention. All the major payers Health IT vendors have analytics as good as anything at MS or Google, I work with the Geisinger health system at a major US University doing analytics work for them. They are far ahead of most other systems and they are woefully behind.

nradov 10y ago

I don't think you've been paying attention. All the major payers Health IT vendors have analytics as good as anything at MS or Google, to the point where it's almost becoming a commodity rather than a real differentiator. Yes provider organizations are behind the curve in actually using those tools due to misaligned incentives but adding another vendor to the market won't solve that problem. Payers have no interest in driving drug development. It wouldn't give them any competitive advantage. It's not like they could restrict sales of a new drug to only their own members! And most payers are providing very little "insurance" now anyway. Mostly they just process claims on behalf of self-insured group buyers. And the notion of those companies getting into medical insurance or drug development is just ludicrous. Their corporate boards would laugh the idea out of the room.

ipunchghosts 10y ago
> I don't think you've been paying attention. All the major payers Health IT vendors have analytics as good as anything at MS or Google, I work with the Geisinger health system at a major US University doing analytics work for them. They are far ahead of most other systems and they are woefully behind.