Continua Set to Standardize Medtech Interoperability

Do doctors really want to receive patient blood glucose data from patient computers sent to their computers? Regardless of the technical protocol I think there are a few more interesting things at play here than whether or not a medical device supports a standard communication protocol. From a branding perspective I get the Continua Alliance but I don't understand why this is a critical path item when approaching the harnessing of data from the perspective of improving patient outcomes.

Doctors and even more importantly nurses do want to monitor their patients compliance daily. Professional monitoring has been proven to improve patient outcomes:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1129085

The critical path addressed by Continua is interoperability. Why should payors, providers, and patents pay extra for multiple proprietary sensors, devices, data aggregators and disease management systems? It would be as wasteful as buying a new PC for every new peripheral.

After reading the linked research (thanks Mike - I hadn't seen this one), I'm still not sure that doctors and nurses want to receive data that they are not paid to review. Figuring out the economic model based on proof of improved outcomes enabled by the data will be the key to whether or not a universal interoperability standard is successful given that there currently isn't a barrier to collecting data today. It just gets a little easier in theory to build new stuff when manufacturers all agree to a common standard. There are plenty of excellent examples of ad-hoc interoperability today so it's really not the obstacle to generating the evidence needed.

When we purchase/build technology today on behalf of patients and our provider clients, we make sure that the device is safe, easy to use, supports transparent operation out of the box, is remotely supportable and most importantly, capable of enabling field-proven protocols that deliver measurable improved outcomes. When there are more interoperable choices available in the market, that side of the equation should improve and we can optimize the technology.

But unless the economic and resource models are figured out in the field (ie-critical path), the expense on manufacturers to support standards-based interoperability will indeed be more expensive than buying a PC for every peripheral. While Continua represents a logical way forward, it's just not a critical path item for delivering improved outcomes on its own.

Maybe Continua will commit to supporting (funding) the clinical trials that are needed to generate the convincing outcomes data? That would be something focused on the critical path.