ScanAvert is an interesting paid application of the same functionality. It allows users to scan the usual UPC barcode information on their supermarket items and cross-check the ingredients with their health profile. Consumers register and create their profile with facts like allergies, prescriptions, diagnoses, dietary needs, etc. ScanAvert uses data provided by Gladson (a major CPG product images and information provider) to do real-time checks on the ingredients of the item to detect incompatibilities. Now I know the usual critique would be that why wouldn’t the consumer just read the ingredient list or package label? And the counter would be that an average consumer may not find the information easily readable or understandable.

Those and other evident arguments aside, the service has obvious value for people with serious dietary issues (think gluten allergy, Celiac, Diabetes, Obesity, Prescription drug interactions). But I’m more excited about another aspect of the service- ScanAvert users can specify custom limits on a labels nutritional box values (calories, carbs, fat…) and get instant recommendation. To me, that is pretty useful for the rest of the population that doesn’t deal with any significant dietary restrictions. In fact, most of us end up buying food items without paying much attention to what it means nutritionally. Even those few that give a thought to the nutritional box items, the mental calculation done is only at a high level (“100 Cal drink…sounds low….I’ll try that”) and inconsistent (how many times have you checked the fat vs. saturated fat numbers?). I doubt most of the ‘normal’ population even knows what is their actual average dietary intake in terms of calories, fat, proteins, etc.

So if someone can setup a profile that puts a limit on the daily fat/protein/cal intake and have a real-time summary report given to them while they were grocery shopping, that would be an darn useful service, I think. Seems like currently ScanAvert can also suggest alternatives (if it detects incompatibility) and send alerts about scanned items that have been recalled. That makes the service even more useful.

It’s intriguing to think about expanding this service into a space where it can potentially be the long-term dietary record for an individual. Suppose one could combine that with a personal activity monitor like FitBit.  That would make a great ‘wellness solution’ for an individual to record, analyze, set goals and then get guidance on two important aspects:

1. Energy input (your food intake)
2. Energy output (your daily activity)

I also found some other apps that help manage food allergies (FoodContentAlerts, iCanEat/iEatOut), although they don’t have bar code scanning ability. This space just keeps getting more interesting every day.

Ranting aside, I like the user-friendliness of this site- very easy to navigate and see relevant information. They also do a good job of digging up public information from various sources and aggregate it all in a as-comprehensive-as-possible profile. Was also impressed by the fact that they have a healthy growth in traffic (now more than half a million unique’s every month, according to Compete).

Given the fact that potential users perhaps value ratings/recommendations/comments from other patients most, the biggest issue with all such sites is how to validate such information. In my search for multiple doctors, user ratings were almost non-existent. But even if they were as abundant as on Amazon, how does one establish their authenticity? I was able to submit ratings on one doctor without submitting any proof that I was ever treated by him (in full disclosure, the rating didn’t show up right away so its not that simple apparently. For example, their FAQ page says you can only rate your doctor once a month). Not sure about their revenue model either, since its free for users. Regardless, this is a good site to bookmark, just for getting all the public information about your doctor in one place.

There is scope for such services, for sure. There are significant number of people who need care that falls outside the realm of what insurance covers. Second opinions, cosmetic procedures, international travelers are some categories that come to mind. But as always, business model remains the Achilles heel. If you are operating a platform that matches supply with demand, its more straightforward to make money in commercial domains, much like eBay or eLance. But healthcare is different ballgame. Privacy, outcomes, benchmarking, feedback, transparency are some of the confounding issues that need to be taken care of.

Currently HealDeal is a social venture, with no subscription or advertisement model evident. Hopefully they have deep pockets or influential allies to keep themselves above water. It’d be interesting to have it as an app on Google Health though, especially if they can strike partnerships with other related, pro-self-pay businesses like Myca.

The service went live in January this year and initially focusing on Hawaii. The basic ‘interactive consultation’ uses two-way video conferencing, audio and secure text chat. It’s a step-up from the usual definition of a ‘e-visit’ which are mostly asynchronous text-based communication. Patients join for a fee, as I understand (what frustrated me was that I couldn’t find how much the fee was. I would have expected that to be extremely obvious!). Physicians sign up and make themselves available in aggregated pools of their respective discipline, which in turn are tapped into by patient demand.

So will the health plans pay for this? Until now they had signed up only two customers- the Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans in Hawaii and Minnesota. Last month, United Health Group, the largest private health insurer in the U.S., said it would begin deploying American Well’s platform across its huge network of more than 70 million members.

The concept has some viability for sure. But like anything else, it remains to be seen how well it can permeate through the tough, unyielding US healthcare system. I’m sure we’ll see many more startups with similar approaches soon.

Quick Medicare tutorial: It consists of Part A, B, C and D. None pays for all of a covered person’s medical costs. The program contains premiums, deductibles and coinsurance, which the covered individual must pay out-of-pocket. After 1997, beneficiaries were given the option to receive benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of original Medicare plan (Parts A and B). That’s why today Medicare insurance market is a complex landscape, filled with lots of insurance companies offering thousands of plan options.

It’s hard to understand it all, let alone find one that fits your health need as well as budget. There is competition, for sure-small (ehealthinsurance, healthinsurancefinders, medigap ) and big (United, Aetna, Cigna..). But I didn’t find many that were only focused on Medicare- most seemed like one-stop shops for all health insurance needs, trying to target everyone.

Notably, this consumer segment is predictably technology-averse with significant communication need. Which is probably why all SeniorEducator online content is in simple language with easy navigation, and they use toll-free numbers to connect with the customers. It’s a good strategy, and it’ll be interesting to see how much traction they can get in a mature market with big entrenched players.

Carol.com’s original intent was to be a ‘marketplace for care’- a place where consumers with fat HSA‘s could comparison shop for their healthcare needs. The site attempted to create “care packages” around specific conditions or medical needs (e.g. years-worth of outpatient asthma care, for example) and let consumers choose which provider to go with. Very neat concept, although in my opinion it’s probably more applicable to commoditized parts of care (like LASIK, botox) rather than a cardiac cath or appendectomy.

Turns out that Carol.com didn’t attract enough buyers and sellers to make this a viable marketplace- blame it on the economic downturn, lack of consumer awareness, or just plain bad timing. The statistics show a steady decline since Feb’08 (probably the peak of media coverage for Carol.com): 15K then to less than 5K in Feb’09.  As this article states, in late 2008 they had to make job cuts and re-think their strategy- which is since then to be a consulting and software services provider for healthcare organizations.

I doubt Carol.com will run out of money anytime soon (the website is still up for Seattle and Twin cities) given it’s founder’s previous success. But its unfortunate that good ideas like it go on life support while CDHC remains in its long gestational period. Someone needs to teach consumers how to drive healthcare… soon.

Vimo is a consumer portal focused on comparison shopping for healthcare needs. Founded in 2005, Vimo provides a platform for users to research, review, compare and price the following:

• Hospital Procedures
• Individual & Group Health Insurance Plans
• Health Savings Accounts
• Doctors

Compete.com data shows pretty good visitor count (more than 100Kvisitors/month), so they must be doing something right. Their services are free which makes the surgical procedure pricing tool even more impressive. I tried their doctor search tool too, and it worked pretty well for my location (returned more info than usual). Neat interface, fast results.