The Big Shift in Books Just Happened - get your eBook on

Sometime in the not-so-distant future, when we are looking for the moment when the book publishing business was finally and fully transformed, we’ll surely point to this month in 2011. Of course, given what’s happened since Amazon launched the Kindle and Apple made the iPad an overwhelming success, it’s no surprise that Barnes and Noble would make some changes in the organization.

The fact that the bookseller reorganized its buying operations to eliminate 45-50 positions while trying to keep every detail quiet suggests there’s a real shift going on in buying habits. The lost positions at B&N primarily deal with the persons who choose which books go into the stores. The company says they’re being replaced with people on the digital side.

That dovetails with a report from USA Today that shows the heart of the business–bestselling books that bring traffic into stores–is rapidly moving to e-books:

For the third week in a row, more than a third of the top 50 books on USA TODAY’s Best-Selling Books list sold more e-book copies than print versions. Among the 19 books more popular in digital form was Kathryn Stockett’s novel, The Help, a sleeper hit from 2009.

Millions of readers got Kindles and iPads this Christmas. They clearly like the new devices. With more tablets on the way and Android’s Honeycomb OS teed up for a launch this year, one can only assume that the numbers we’ve already seen will only be amplified.

By the end of 2011, will the number of bestsellers that outsell in e-book be 32 instead of 16 for USA Today’s top 50? With much of the bestseller market already going to Costco, Wal-Mart and Target, how big wil the impact be on Barne & Noble?

Even with a successful Nook business, the physical stores will lose a key driver of traffic. The buyers who were let go this month didn’t just choose the bestsellers for the front of the store, they stocked the categories that are supposed to be the Superstore’s appeal. Barnes & Noble’s selling proposition is that their stores carry 100,000+ titles so you’ll always be able to find what you’re looking for. Will that be enough to drive foot traffic?

Probably not. With the loss of Borders, which will surely go out of business this year, and the potential for a greatly reduced Barnes & Noble that these staff changes portend, the distribution channel for physical books will only get smaller. That will put more emphasis on e-books to the point where publishers start orienting all of their publication strategies around generating e-book sales, a sea change in what it means to publish a book.

I know for me, the eBook has been a revolution. With my iPad and Kindle software, I have gone from reading one book per month (thats generous, Suneil) to about 1 per week. I shift back and forth from a business book to a indulgent read every other book (currently, I am indulging on the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series). There are so many benefits. First and foremost, eBooks are so much cheaper at about $12 vs $25 for the hardback version. Second, I can buy them on a whim wherever I am. And third, I can carry so many books on my iPad. I usually have 2-3 book on my iPad that I bough but have not read.
The revolution has happened. I read regular books only to my kids. But I know by the time they get to 5th grade (maybe earlier) it will be all eBooks for them. Forget the feel of a page, and all that business (thats like audiophiles saying there is something about a physical vinyl record compared to MP3). Rather than lamenting the loss of these touchy-feely things, we should all rejoice that digitization of books will lead to more and more kids reading more and more books (like me!). Publishers can complain that the price per book is lower... you know what? If it wasnt for the eBook, you wouldnt have even had my $13!

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

Study Finds Menu Labeling Didn't Change Eating Habits - WSJ: I dont agree

By Katherine Hobson

McDonald’s and other chains will soon have to post calorie counts on their menus.

The theory behind posting nutritional information on restaurant menus is that consumers will change what they buy when they know their usual choices are high in calories, saturated fat or sodium.

That theory may be wrong, however, according to a new study by researchers from Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School and the Seattle-area public-health department. The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, tracked what happened at the Taco Time chain in the 13 months after a menu-labeling law went into effect in King County, which includes Seattle.

Researchers compared seven restaurants within King County to seven located outside of the county — and thus not subject to the new law. They found the law had no statistically significant impact on the amount of calories people purchased.

Lead author Eric Finkelstein, an associate professor of health services at Duke-NUS, tells the Health Blog he was surprised to find no effect at all; he’d assumed that like a few previous studies in different areas, he and his colleagues would find “a modest effect [that] would dissipate over time.”

Taco Time already had a “Healthy Highlights” icon to indicate more healthful options. Adding more detailed calorie, fat and sodium data may be superfluous, he says. (Read: Nutrition Rating Systems Should Keep it Simple, Stupid). After all, the nutritional facts label introduced to packaged foods in the mid-1990s didn’t do anything to stem the rising tide of obesity.

This research has larger implications, because the health-care overhaul law specified that menu labeling will soon be the law of the land for chain restaurants with at least 20 locations. The study authors recommend further research “to identify the circumstances under which mandatory menu labeling is likely to be most effective.” (One Pacific Northwest burger chain is taking another tack, printing nutritional data on customer receipts.)

Rather than changing consumer behavior, the menu labeling law may instead be more effective on the supply side, Finkelstein says. Restaurants may be slightly embarrassed by having to call attention to the zillions of calories in their Super Fatty Burger, and might then try to rejigger their menu items to bring down calories, saturated fat or sodium.

“Chains are looking for small changes that improve the health content but don’t change taste,” he says.

Photo: Associated Press

I can tell you that the labeling at fast food restaurants has definitely had an effect. I travel a good amount for work, and sometimes fastfood is the only option. Even outside of work, though I am semi-health conscious, I still enjoy fastfood once in a while. An example of a change for me is at Au Bon Pain, I changed from eating a high calorie prosciutto sandwich to a blackbean burger because they posted calories. I even have switched to mineral water from Diet Coke. I think what you will find is there will be a certain portion of the population heavily affected by the posting of calories, while many still will not. I believe the researchers need to break their data dont into further groups - such a socioeconomic, age, etc. It is making a difference posting the calories.

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

Data Matters: Data Proves New York City Cabs Do Disappear at 4 P.M.

I love data. It helps us in life from the most complex business / technology problem, down to everyday issues that affects everyone. Here, NYC is seeing the effect of having realtime GPS data from all of their cabs. Now that they have the data at their fingertips, they have moved from data gatherers (expensive, slow, inaccurate) to data analyzers (use the human mind, exciting, innovative!). Now they can fix this problem easily that most people knew was in fact a problem, but could not be addressed before. Data is powerful... when understood and analyzed right.

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

California puts out 1st Hospital Infection Report - Incomplete? Yes. But a great start. #ptsafety

State health department disavows accuracy of its own report on hospital infections

BY STEVEN MAYER, Californian staff writer
smayer@bakersfield.com | Friday, Jan 07 2011 04:15 PM

Last Updated Friday, Jan 07 2011 04:15 PM

Two years ago most hospital administrators began reporting their hospital-acquired infection rates to state health officials, as required by a new state law.

And in the waning days of 2010, state health officials made those numbers public.

There's only one drawback.

The raw numbers are just this side of worthless.

"We accept the blame," said Mike Sicilia, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Health, the state agency responsible for collecting, verifying and publishing the numbers of patients who contract four types of infections -- and in which hospitals the infections occurred.

Although most believe the report is a good first step in publicly reporting the incidence of hospital-acquired infections, public health officials have not been cagey about what they say are "significant limitations" in regards to the quality and completeness of the numbers.

"There's a lot of raw data, but it's not risk-adjusted," Sicilia said.

And that can skew the results.

For example, Shriners Hospital for Children in Sacramento appears to have the highest rate of infections in the Sacramento area, according to the raw data. But Shriners performs procedures and treats more patients that present higher risks of certain types of infections, Sicilia said.

Although the reporting period began in January 2009, the health department was not budgeted to staff the program until nearly a year later. Additionally, the department only had a minimal system in place to receive the infection-reporting forms.

Because the law allowed hospitals to submit the data in one of two ways -- on paper or electronically -- there was no consistency. The department also acknowledges that it had no quality-assurance process in place to review and correct data errors, and hospitals were not able to verify their data close to the time of public release.

An estimated 200,000 hospital-acquired infections and 12,000 related deaths occur statewide each year.

Medical consumer advocates have argued for years that making the incidence of hospital-acquired infections available to the general public -- including singling out hospitals by name -- will compel patient-care facilities to reduce the number of infections and give consumers critical information about the hospitals in their communities.

After being given more than two years to prepare, the first wave of reports on the state's 373 general acute-care hospitals was released to the public Dec. 30, just two days before the Jan. 1 deadline.

But California's first stab at providing everyday residents with the long-awaited statistics is far from perfect and anything but user-friendly, say consumer advocates.

"Navigating the reports is not easy; that's one of our biggest complaints," said Lisa McGiffert, director of Consumers Union's Safe Patient Project.

Going public with these numbers will reduce infection rates, McGiffert said, because it forces hospitals to create a system that searches for and documents infections.

Many hospitals were said to have provided incomplete statistics, although the state's flawed records-gathering system even places that in doubt.

And what about the 20 hospitals -- including three in Kern County -- that the state said didn't provide any numbers at all?

"We're in touch with all those hospitals," Sicilia said.

According to the reports, Kern Medical Center, Kern's county-owned hospital, did not provide infection numbers. Delano Regional Medical Center and Good Samaritan Hospital in Bakersfield were also on the list of hospitals that did not report.

But that information also appears to be in question.

Kern Medical Center Chief Executive Paul Hensler said the county-owned hospital has been providing data all along as required. And while KMC's reports were not included in the public release, Hensler instructed staff to immediately forward KMC's raw data to The Californian. Unfortunately, the data received so far included just one of the four infection types.

"The idea of keeping and reporting the data I think is good," Hensler said. "If you don't measure it, you can't improve."

Kathie Wright, a spokeswoman for Delano Regional Medical Center, also said the hospital has been providing the infection numbers.

"We've been reporting monthly," Wright said. "We're absolutely required by law to do this."

While the Consumers Union's McGiffert acknowledged the data needs more context, she said the early numbers are still valuable. Consumers can look at the sample size to avoid making grossly unfair comparisons, she said.

Nevertheless, the state must do a better job of collecting and verifying the data.

"All of this is self-reported by hospitals," McGiffert said. "I don't think we can trust that. I feel confident that many infections that occurred did not get reported."

Meanwhile, McGiffert said, Consumer Reports, a sister organization to Consumers Union, is working to compile the data in a more user-friendly format. Whether such a format change can overcome the still-emerging problems with the raw data remains to be seen.

State Public Health Director Dr. Mark Horton said in a statement that the effort, though flawed, represents "a first step toward closer monitoring of these infections in hospital settings and more robust public reporting."

Given all of the limitations of the data, "these data cannot be used for comparisons between hospitals," Horton said.

The department's Sicilia said the bugs are already being worked out of the reporting system.

"We believe next year's report will be much better," he said.

California has mandated that all hospitals begin reporting ALL infections and for the information to be made public. January 1, 2011, the first report came out. As could easily be predicted, the information is incomplete, fragmented, and hard to sort through. However, I still stand up in applause for this initiative. There are still many steps to be taken in this process. But the hardest part, getting the ball rolling forward (overcoming the inertia) has been overcome. Now hospitals are getting in the mode of reporting infections, no matter how it makes them look. Now, analysts can begin reviewing the data. Now, we can see how to make the process better. This is going to lead to 1000's of hospital-borne infections being eliminated annually.
One of healthcare's biggest issues is grappling with the idea of transparency. From pricing, to reporting errors, to scheduling of patient visits, hospitals and staff are very nervous to change. I dont blame them - they are thinking about their patients and the hospitals' reputations. Change is difficult for everybody. But in any industry, in any walk of life, transparency always leads to an overall improvement in logistics, pricing, and operations. It is what helped the airline industry become the safest industry in the world.
Hospitals are on their way with their transparency and lean movements. I am looking forward to see seeing hospitals delivering even better care.

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

Kudos to Paul Levy and his push for Transparency in healthcare

I read Paul Levy's blog (runningahospital.blogspot.com) religiously.  He is the President of Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center in Boston.  One of the big things he pushes is for transparency in healthcare and I cant agree with him more.  As with any other industry, the people in healthcare are great, caring, honest people.  Problems occur in any industry, so no one is to blame.  However, if the system is setup for them to hide information except that which makes them look great, then the problems can never be identied, analyzed and fixed. 

Mr. Levy is stepping down as President of BIDMC.  I congratulate him on his push for transparency, especially given the difficulties it must bring in his position.  I hope he continues the push.  I believe transparency and data is a cornerstone in fixing the healthcare issues the US is up against today.

 

The moral component to transparency

Many of you have asked if I intend to continue this blog, now that I am stepping down as CEO of BIDMC. Yes. (I'll have to change the name. How about "The blog formerly known as . . . " or just a simple "Not Running a Hospital"?)

Please expect a combination of commentary on current events and issues. But also please expect an occasional lesson or two from my experience of the last nine years, all offered in the hope of being helpful to others in the field. I apologize in advance if some portions seem self-aggrandizing or self-praiseworthy. I don't mean them that way, but sometimes, to be historically accurate, I'll have to include a few good things about myself!

Here we go. Act 2.

Read the FULL POST at http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2011/01/moral-component-to-transparency....

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

Verizon To Announce iPhone on Tuesday

Two of most trusted news sources, mashable, and now the Wall Street Journal, say Verizon is coming out with the iPhone this week. The understanding is that employees are being restricted from vacations toward the end of Jan, beginning of Feb, signaling when it will be actually available.

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

How the case against the vaccine, causing autism, was fixed

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

  1. Brian Deer, journalist
  1. 1London, UK
  1. briandeer.com

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school

When I broke the news to the father of child 11, at first he did not believe me. “Wakefield told us my son was the 13th child they saw,” he said, gazing for the first time at the now infamous research paper which linked a purported new syndrome with the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. 1 “There’s only 12 in this.”

That paper was published in the Lancet on 28 February 1998. It was retracted on 2 February 2010. 2 Authored by Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith, and 11 others from the Royal Free medical school, London, it reported on 12 developmentally challenged children, 3 and triggered a decade long public health scare.

“Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated by the parents with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children,” began the paper’s “findings.” Adopting these claims as fact, 4 its “results” section added: “In these eight children the average interval from exposure to first behavioural symptoms was 6.3 days (range 1-14).”

Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of “regressive” autism, and all but one were reported with “non-specific colitis.” The “new syndrome” brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case.

Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he …

Debunked. I dont know if this is the end of it. There is a lot of energy vested in the Autism from vaccination scare. You cant blame the parents for being scared of this - its their children at stake. But somehow, this one singular report, whipped up into a scare for all parents and probably has cause many deaths. Hopefully, we can put this to bed now and protect our children.

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous

Doctor Will Skype You Now: More Docs using video chats to see SOME patients

In the winter, a mountainous region of California that the locals call the Grapevine is plagued by severe weather. The highway that winds through it is coated with snow and ice, making travel between central and southern parts of the state difficult and, sometimes, nearly impossible.

During these stormy outbursts, Dr. Gregory Smith, who specializes in treating chronic pain and prescription drug abuse, can't make it from his office in Los Angeles to his Fresno clinic. Two years ago, his only options were to reschedule appointments or cancel altogether.

But now, Smith uses his computer webcam to "see" his patients. He estimates the video technology enabled him to save 350 to 500 appointments this year.

"It's almost as good as being there," said Smith, whose two clinics have more than 1,300 patients.

Web-camera doctor appointments have their benefits and their drawbacks. Free online video-chat services let doctors check in quickly with patients, which can be more convenient for both. They let sick patients keep their germs at home, rather than bring them to an office. And doctors in some specialties, such as plastic surgery, use the technology to extend the reach of their practices by having e-consultations with patients in far-away cities.

But nothing can replace real-life contact with a patient, doctors say. There are nuances to medical conditions that can be conveyed only during face-to-face interactions.

While the pros and cons of video-chats are debated, one thing seems certain: With technology creeping into more areas of our lives, the number of people making such appointments will only increase.

On the rise

It's hard to quantify how many doctors now use webcams in their practices, because no agency tracks or requires doctors to report webcam use, said Gary Capistrant, senior director of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association (ATA).

But "it's absolutely increasing," Capistrant told MyHealthNewsDaily, "and now that you've got those 4G phones where you can videoconference from your cell phone, it's going to be much more common."

For some, the question is not whether to video-chat with patients, but rather how to strike a balance between video and real-life appointments.

Smith won't use a webcam or Skype software exclusively to see patients who are far away, and prefers to have at least a few in-person appointments before agreeing to a webcam visit.

But the technology is useful for quick check-ins if a patient doesn't have an appointment, he said.

"If there's some pressing event, it's so convenient that you can say, 'I'll just Skype this guy for five to 10 minutes,'" Smith said. "Then, you can solve the problem right there instead of having to make another appointment."

Under current laws, doctors must be licensed in other states if they are seeing patients outside of their home state on a more-than-occasional basis, according to the ATA.

But as technology becomes more advanced, gray areas in the laws are likely to grow, Capistrant said, and doctors will need to be increasingly aware of medical laws in other states.

To practice medicine right now - even over a computer - a doctor must be licensed in the state where he or she is physically located, as well as in the state where the patient is located, he said. But many doctors are licensed in more than one state, and some states have agreements with others to accommodate doctors who see patients across state lines, Capistrant said.

Doctors also have to make sure their communication is secure and encrypted in some fashion in order to abide by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which ensures patient privacy, Capistrant said.

"Doctors should inform the patient of what's involved and disclose any risk, but the patient is ultimately the one who can decide ... the level of protection they want on their medical information," Capistrant said.

Further, video appointments may change the way doctors bill their patients. Currently, doctors can charge patients the same price for an in-person appointment as an Internet appointment. But as technology shortens the length of appointments - when they last, perhaps, only as long as it takes to answer a question with a text message - the system will need an update, Capistrant said.

In the future, rather than micromanaging every appointment and procedure, he said, doctors may bill patients a single monthly fee that covers office appointments, webcam chats, e-mails and texts.

A risk-benefit balance

Risks to both the quality of care and patients' privacy rise when doctors use Skype to communicate with their patients, said Dr. Stuart Gitlow, an associate clinical professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

Doctors have to be sure they aren't being lazy when occasional video chats with patients.

Quite a few of his psychiatric patients have panic disorders, or develop anxiety when interacting in settings like a doctor's office. For those people, the prospect of an Internet appointment can help them feel at ease - and provide Gitlow with contextual information about his patients.

"I can see the person and the room they're in, and you could even make the argument that I'm getting to see them in their own domain," he said. "I can see what they're wearing, if they're functional, taking care of the place. I get a perspective I don't get in the office."

However, there are still some things that can only be garnered from an in-person visit, Gitlow said. He requires his patients see him face-to-face for most of their appointments.

Using a webcam is "something that's an issue of convenience for a given patient, who I've already established [a] relationship with in-person," he said.

The patient's side of the webcam

Earlier this year, Aaliyah White, 24, an assistant to a sports agent in Providence, R.I., decided she wanted filler injected into the right side of her lips and in laugh lines around her face.

Her Internet research to find a doctor led her to a YouTube video of Dr. Michael Escobedo, of Escobedo Esthetics in Austin, Texas, performing a cosmetic procedure on a patient from start to finish. Impressed by his skill, White called his office - she was willing to fly to Texas for a consultation, just as she previously flew to meet a Utah plastic surgeon for a breast augmentation.

But Escobedo offered her a webcam appointment. An assistant in Escobedo's office gave White a time to log on to Skype, and soon she and Escobedo were face-to-face.

"Before I even started talking, he said, 'I'm already seeing some of the problems that you want fixed,'" White told MyHealthNewsDaily. "He said, 'You probably want some filler on the right side of the lip, and the laugh lines.' He hit it, and he was on."

Escobedo started doing webcam consultations at the start of this year, and has found they've expanded his reach. He now does about two Skype consultations a week with prospective patients, many of whom live in New York City or Los Angeles.

"Patients would say, 'I wish I could see you, I wish you could see what I'm talking about,'" Escobedo told MyHealthNewsDaily. "It gives me a chance to see them and I can tell them, 'That's probably not something you want to do' or 'You should do it.'"

Internet consultations also let him give more accurate price estimates for procedures. And they make it easier to follow up with the patient to see if the lift or injection has gone well, he said.

Doctor-doctor connections

Online video messaging has uses beyond the private practice. Dr. Thomas Lee, a pediatric ophthalmologist, uses Skype to help train doctors in Armenia to treat a rare eye condition called retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a condition in premature babies that leads to blindness.

In the United States, ROP has only been known since the 1940s, when incubators and neonatal intensive-care units (NICUs) became prevalent and allowed premature babies to live past a single breath, said Lee, who works at the Vision Center at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.

In less developed countries, incubators and NICUs are only now becoming a reality, so doctors there are seeing ROP for the first time.

Lee traveled to Armenia last summer to help train them. During the visit, he and his team left behind two retina cameras that can take close-up pictures of babies' eyes. Now, doctors there send retinal photos to Lee via Google Documents to verify cases of ROP.

Lee and the Armenian doctors also meet weekly on Skype, he told MyHealthNewsDaily.

"They take [a photo with] the retina camera, we evaluate and make a decision to treat," Lee said. "If the decision is to treat, then they do the laser treatment. And then after that, they e-mail us a picture post-treatment of what that looked like, so we can tell them if they were complete in their treatment."

"It's a way for this country and the expertise in this country to assist medical education in foreign countries without leaving our home institution," he said.

Pass it on: Doctors are turning to online video messaging as another way of meeting their patients' needs, but medical, legal and economic challenges lie ahead as this practice becomes increasingly common.

Follow MyHealthNewsDaily staff writer Amanda Chan on Twitter @AmandaLChan.

LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool gadgets at the LiveScience Store.

I am excited to see the rise of use of technology such as video chats for home healthcare. Our doctor's and doctor's offices today are crowded and inefficient as insurance pushes doctors to see more patients. The people in the article bring up a good point that video chatting should not be a 100% replacement for office visits. However, for those occassions when it works, it will help everyone else tremendously. I think about when EZPass first came out. At first, there was only a small percentage of people that used EZPass (maybe 10-20% of drivers). However, it had a disproportionate effect - the EZPass drivers, of course, reduced their line time to nothing. However, for everyone else not using EZPass, their line time also went down from waiting for 10 cars in front of them to just a couple of cars. This is the effect video appointments, for select cases, could have on doctor's offices.

Posted via email from Suneil Mandava's Posterous