A market segment, which contains the word 'things' is evidently going to become prone to a variety of interpretations and this is definitely the case with the Internet of Things (IoT.) Nevertheless, the market for IoT in healthcare has been forecasted to reach a very significant market size, for instance $117b by 2020 according to Mind Commerce. For such an influential trend, there is widespread confusion around what this term actually means and what it includes.
For this reason, this blog post will attempt to consolidate three basic definitions into one with an aim to encompass the majority of potential aspects of IoT. It's important to note that there are much deeper descriptions behind these but we're looking for the core sentence that summarize what the market actually is.
---
Horses for Sources (HfS)
HfS defines IoT as: 'The association of data to a physical device and the delivery of this data from that device to a centralized repository for further processing.'
This description focuses on the data and how it is managed and processed with the physical devices simply being the enabler of the market. With this in mind, vendors who have strong capabilities in data management are likely to score highly in HfS's estimations.
---
Gartner
Gartner defines IoT as: 'The network of physical objects that contain embedded technology to communicate and sense or interact with their internal states or the external environment.'
Gartner's definition focuses a lot more heavily on the devices and does not feature the word 'data' at all although it is definitely implied. Gartner also uses additional vocabulary in 'sense' and 'interact'. It's important to note that sensors, especially within the healthcare market are an integral part of IoT as they not only facilitate data transfer but in a lot of cases, they carry it out proactively.
---
IDC
IDC defines IoT as: 'a network of networks of uniquely identifiable endpoints (or "things") that communicate without human interaction using IP connectivity — whether locally or globally.'
Following on from the point I made above about sensors carrying out data transfer proactively, IDC's definition highlights that IoT does not require human interaction. This aspect will provoke one of two reactions: 1) 'Fantastic, without human interaction means streamlined processes and the ability to focus our efforts on end users', or 2) 'Hmm, I'm not sure I trust endpoints communicating without human interaction.' Whilst IoT has a multitude of benefits, concerns over security must be addressed.
---
Each of these definitions have their own merits and by no means are any of them wrong. At this point, I would like to propose an amalgamation of these definitions and include a nod to security, which I personally believe is critical to include for successful client interactions on an enterprise level.
My definition would be: 'The secure communication of data which occurs between a network of endpoints and centralized repositories via IP connectivity for further processing.'
This blog post may seem trivial in nature but it is this lack of standard definition that is leading to a lack of standards. This lack of standards then naturally leads onto security concerns, which is the number one barrier to IoT adoption across all vertical industries.
What do you think? Do you agree with these definitions? Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel as it pertains to global standards for IoT? Please feel free to comment below and share on social media.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Cordwell
Research Analyst, Healthcare Strategy
ResearchNetwork, CSC
- Aria Systems, Healthcare: A $117B opportunity for the Internet of Things, Healthcare: A $117B opportunity for the Internet of Things - See more at: https://www.ariasystems.com/blog/healthcare-a-117b-opportunity-for-the-internet-of-things/#sthash.YR2SaIEg.dpuf
- Horses for Sources, Harman, Tech Mahindra, IBM, Accenture and Atos leading the Internet of Things phenomenon, 3rd Oct, 2015, http://www.horsesforsources.com/hfs-iot-blueprint_100315
- Gartner, Internet of Things, http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/internet-of-things/
- IDC, IDC Market in a Minute: Internet of Things, http://www.idc.com/downloads/idc_market_in_a_minute_iot_infographic.pdf
This month, I've been looking at a very interesting topic that is receiving an increasing amount of attention within the IT landscape; Blockchain. Blockchain is a public ledger of transactions, which was originally founded to cater to Bitcoin transactions. Although Blockchain is much more well established within the financial services sector, it is gradually making its way into other industries such as healthcare. Previously theoretical use cases are now being acted upon by innovators in the market. This blog post will look at five examples of how it is being adopted within healthcare and life sciences:
EHR storage & security
- Blockchain is a security technology at its core and with the ever-present concern over the security of electronic health records, it is likely to cater to this challenge first as it enters healthcare. Factom, a provider of Blockchain technology, recently announced a partnership with HealthNautica, a medical records and services solutions provider. Their joint aim is to secure medical records and audit trails using the Blockchain. They will do this by cryptographically encoding private medical data and then a digital fingerprint is formed for time-stamping and verification purposes. This facilitates both the storage of the EHR and its security but what is also interesting is that organizations are also looking into how healthcare providers can send out encrypted personalized medical recommendations, which the user can access with their own, unique key.
DNA wallets
- An Israeli startup named DNA.Bits is planning to store genetic and medical data which is again secured via the blockchain and accessed using private keys and this will form a "DNA wallet". This could allow healthcare providers to securely share – and possibly monetize – patient data, helping pharmaceutical companies to tailor drugs more efficiently. What's striking about this is that the article was published over a year ago in June of 2014, which really highlights that this kind of development is becoming well established.
Bitcoin payments
- In a similar style to Factom and HealthNautica, BitHealth is also looking to store and secure medical records using the blockchain. This system also facilitates Bitcoin payments, giving patients additional options for how they pay their healthcare insurers. Although this relies on the success rate of Bitcoin in the market, insurers who offer this method will have a competitive advantage over their peers. With regards to health insurers, due to blockchain being established within the financial services sector, it is expected that lessons learned will cross over.
Anti-counterfeit drugs
- BlockVerify is looking to use blockchain in the fight against counterfeit drugs. In a similar way to M-Pedigree technologies, it features panels on drug packages that can be peeled or scratched off to reveal a unique verification tag. This is then cross referenced with the blockchain to ensure that the pharmaceutical product is legitimate.
Protein folding
- Stanford University previously relied on expensive super computers to simulate protein folding as it happens incredibly fast. This method was obviously costly and had a single point of failure. Using the blockchain, they can instead use a decentralized network of over 170,000 computers to produce 40,000 teraflops of computing power. This example will grab the attention of other industries that utilize expensive supercomputers. This could even make its way into the analytical space by utilizing a broad base of data for predictive analytics.
Clearly these are all cutting-edge innovations, but as with the financial sector, they point the way for mainstream adoption. Have you heard any other rumblings of how Blockchain is being used in healthcare and life sciences? How else do you think this new technology could be applied to add value to customers? I'd love to hear what you think. Please comment below and if you've enjoyed this post, please share on social media.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Cordwell
Research Analyst, Healthcare Strategy
ResearchNetwork, CSC
- Factom, HealthNautica + Factom Announce Partnership, http://blog.factom.org/post/117173667784/healthnautica-factom-announce-partnership, 23rd Apr 2015
- City A.M., Blockchain breaks new ground with DNA wallet, http://www.cityam.com/1403865514/blockchain-breaks-new-ground-dna-wallet, 27 Jun 2014
- BitHealth, http://devpost.com/software/bithealth
- The Coin Front, Block Verify to fight medical counterfeiting problem, http://thecoinfront.com/block-verify-to-fight-medical-counterfeiting-problem/, 11th Mar 2015
- Daily Trading Profits, New Uses For Blockchain Technology, http://www.dailytradingprofits.com/1279/new-uses-for-blockchain-technology/, 6th October 2014
It should come as no shock to anyone reading this that security in the Healthcare industry is a huge issue. With the introduction of flashy new tech comes the burden of making sure that it is not compromised. This is by no means an isolated issue as security is paramount in a variety of other verticals but the sensitive and personal nature of the data held by Healthcare organizations means that breaches receive a lot of media attention. The question is whether it is more effective to guard against incoming attacks or proactively analyze data to prevent future breaches from being as effective.
Before I start, it's important to note that the main cause of Healthcare data breaches occur due to lost or stolen devices (68%) rather than hacking [1]. This issue will progressively worsen due to organizations embracing the mobility trend and so it is much easier (although by no means easy to start with) to protect the data held on these devices rather than the devices themselves. With this being said, a blog post about locking up your devices and keeping a firm eye on them would be pretty short and dull so I'd like to concentrate on hacking and malicious attacks.
Healthcare organizations will continue to invest in defensive measures against cyber crime but it is becoming increasingly important to invest in the analysis of these threats and the prediction of future potential breaches. This will run in parallel to the evolving technologies enabling hackers to maliciously gain access to the organizations data.
With the ever growing popularity of Big Data & Analytics, it is crucial that attacks are not treated as independent events and instead the data and information should be collected until there is a significant mass to analyze previous attacks and prepare for what's to come. This intelligence will then (hopefully) enable the user to identify when the organization is under attack a lot quicker and then respond more efficiently.
I'd like to conclude this blog post by highlighting that although security measures are evolving as are hacking techniques, the biggest variable factor is the user - whether it be due to insufficient training, snooping or a blatant disregard for protocol. There is a vicious cycle whereby as security measures become more sophisticated, they may become less user friendly, prompting users to find easier workarounds which then make the system vulnerable. In my personal opinion, organizations should invest further into training and user friendly interfaces whilst maintaining secure access to data in the background.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Cordwell
Research Analyst, Healthcare Strategy
ResearchNetwork, CSC
- HIT Consultant, 68% of Healthcare Data Breaches Due to Device Loss or Theft, Not Hacking, 11/04/2014: http://hitconsultant.net/2014/11/04/healthcare-data-breaches-device-theft-loss/
