Do hospitals mismanage support for vulnerable older adults? And we wonder why people, including doctors, avoid hospitals. We knew that an older adult going into the hospital experiences or departs with an unwanted side effect. Half a million per year acquire C.Difficile in hospitals -- costing $4.8 billion; ICU risk of death is 35% higher for elderly. And MRSA has a 12-month death rate of between 20 and 35% -- with the most vulnerable, you guessed it, the elderly. But did you know that one-third of hospital patients over age 70 and half of the patients leave the hospital more disabled than when they arrived? Question raised: what about appointed or actual advocates when elderly patients are admitted – is someone present or appointed by the hospital who will observe care, including vigilance about hand-washing or ICU treatment– perhaps the state-by-state Care Act address this in a future update.
Is the home care franchising world doomed by tech-enabled home care? First clue: Google’s $46.6 million investment in June in Care.com (child, elder and pet care to housekeeping). Then the Honor jaw-dropping investment of $42 million in Series B. The home health industry is a "fragmented" system that Honor aims to fix, according to its new investor and the Business Insider article: There are an estimated 2.5 million home care workers out there, and about 12,400 home health agencies managing them all. According to "Thrive VC Kareem Zaki, he told Business Insider that it was important that Honor owns the whole system." And per Seth’s vision for the platform, he said: “It'll be like a car: There's a lot of complex technology going on behind the scenes, but driving the car is easy enough for anyone to do."
Sometimes the biggest firms lose interest in older adults almost immediately. That was Amazon 50+. And some, like Apple, never get started, despite interest from their supporters or an integrator like IBM. Others might get started thinking about a good idea – but within a year or so, executives hold a meeting and one of them says – 'What? What? When did we start to focus on older adults?' How is that a growth proposition, especially for the oldest old? And so the companies get started, move a bit and/or cancel the effort altogether. Or like Google, they focus on the really far-end of the aging continuum – solving death.
Innovation from companies that have been there, done that. It's intriguing to observe companies that have been in business for a while. Sometimes there is a redirect into a new space or channel (see Philips and its direct-to-consumer approach) and sometimes innovation arrives that may augment an existing portfolio. The market of technology and services for older adults continues to expand (see a near-hysterical Huffington Post article.) So flipping around the cliché that 90% of all startup companies fail, wonder if there is another one -- 90% of all existing tech-related companies launch a tech or a service targeting seniors and caregivers within the next 5 years? Here are five offerings - all text is from the company sites or press releases.
So you read a headline and say, what, what?? But of course we regularly find ourselves incredulous. Can that headline be accurate? What did that study say? Who did they survey to get that result? This has been a particularly bad week for distortion headlines – and not about politics, actually. These are about topics seniors and families would care about and be disappointed when they read more. Let’s start with the Wall Street Journal article title:
Music makes the world go around. We all know the importance of music – every type of device has a song and dance for accessing, storing and hearing it. Gadgets and apps for listening are everywhere, even as the world of hi fidelity speakers is diminished to ever-smaller and more remarkable sound reproduction. In the 70’s MIT entrepreneurs founded Tech HiFi, which boomed into 80 stores and some fabulous catalogs before collapsing in the 1980s, along with nearly every other store, including the original not-online-140-character nonsense, the once-$750 million chain was actually called Tweeter. Okay, so all that is gone except for the gear bought by those aged 50+ -- including grand pianos and stereo equipment that the boomers and beyond may have left in their to-be-downsized homes.
Entrepreneurs from Israel have found or been found by Aging 2.0. The mission of Aging 2.0 extends beyond the US: they are seeking innovators and inventions from everywhere, holding events, inviting pitches and announcing finalists. Last week, 12 entrepreneurs from Israel were written up in Jewish Business News – targeting 'technologies for the myriad needs of the aging population.' Five are included here. These have some unique attributes, but also inspire questions -- which may be the 2.0 issue of aging tech/tech-and-aging. Consider the five below. The target recipient of the technology is uncomfortable with technology, may have a physical limitation (hearing or dementia), and be at risk of social isolation. For each of these inventors, next is to identify the go-to-market partner category that will move these offerings into the homes of those who benefit at a beta-tested price point, combining with already familiar services targeting the broader needs of these individuals. These are very early-stage and all text comes from the original article:
This text is touch-typed on a real keyboard. The keyboard is attached to a computer, as is the display. It is very functional. Compare that to a Very Smart Phone (VSP) with its soft keyboard and its microphone for dictating (Speak Now! Oops, too late -- Speak Now!). So consider the description of one particular smartphone keyboard app, Smart Keyboard Pro: “It’s not bad if you need something simple that just works.” Obviously some people expect/want something more. For them, there are a myriad of choices, including these iOS keyboard apps – how about that version 1.0.1 Google-provided iPhone keyboard app called Gboard?
Do VCs matter in the older adult space?According to a Stanford Business School analysis, in today's economy VCs have become a 'dominant force' in the financing of innovative companies. This began, they note, with "a regulatory change in 1979 that permitted pension funds to invest in VC funds." Okay, but do VCs really matter? Now switch coasts and perspectives, note how a Harvard Business School report picked through six myths about VCs, pretty much debunking the rhetoric in the Stanford report. Most VC funds, especially larger ones, do not outperform the market. "VC financing is the exception, not the norm, for startups" and given the rise of crowd funding and a broad range of angel investors, "VCs will continue to play a significant, but most likely smaller, role in channeling capital to disruptive start-ups." The question to ponder: which category of investor, and specifically which investor groups, are interested in the older boomer and senior markets?
