Finding Value in Aging in Place Tech

So often, Too often, High Tech is seen as an end in itself. It can be done and so it must. Okay we get that, but does it add value? How is value measured?

In discussing tech value or the lack, a current discussion is about losing our ability to concentrate because of the way we use the internet. Nicholas Carr‘s well received Atlantic Monthly article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? on this issue can be compared to worrying that technology will eliminate the humanity and touch associated with caregiving. That is not easily measured value.

Now comes a really good article in the the McKinsey Quarterly on the potential and barriers for high tech home health care, AND how it is measured. Spurring the Market for High Tech Home Health Care spools out eight factors in three categories. I agree with the analysis. Payer and provider incentives and revenue models must be aligned and sensible, the technologies must be accessible and easy to use, but for me the most important idea is the effectiveness category- specifically that the info gathered must be actionable,

“4. Actionable. Merely observing or flagging an event is not enough; a home care technology must be accompanied by some way to take action”.

I couldn’t agree more. The hub I refer to in Aging in Place 2.0: Rethinking Solutions to the Home Care Challenge, published last year by the MetLife Mature Marketing Institute describes the system required to achieve that ‘actionability’.

The McKinsey article speaks to measurable value, especially aligned with current  health care reform to reduce facility admissions and re-admissions. I have written about these topics in this blog under the heading of Analog First and other technology entries.

The McKinsey article is not advocacy or passion. Just a look into the topic and some easy conclusions. We advocates need to pay attention.

Thanks to my friend and colleague Laurie Orlov, of Aging in Place Technology Watch for bringing this article to my attention.