News Center

The Future Of Health Care Is In Data Analytics

Posted on by Eli Love

by Mike Montgomery

Every minute of the day, eCare21, a remote patient-monitoring system, collects thousands of pieces of health data about more than 1,000 senior citizens. The telehealth system uses smartphones, Fitbits, Bluetooth and sensors to collect information about things like blood pressure, physical activity, glucose levels, medication intake and weight. The information is then compiled on a dashboard so that the patients’ doctors, loved ones and caregivers can keep an eye on them and provide proactive care, even from hundreds of miles away.

This is proving to be a valuable service for individuals managing complicated health situations. But Vadim Cherdak, CEO and president of eCare21, says we are only scratching the surface. Once his company partners with a big data analytics service, it will be able to glean even more useful insights from the intense amount of data flowing in.

Cherdak expects to be able to deeply analyze the data to provide better alerts and tailored recommendations for patients and caregivers. Cherdak has been looking at big data systems such as IBM Watson, Cloudvara and Hortonworks, but the industry is still in the pioneering stages. No one yet knows the best way to make sense of the vast troves of data.

This kind of telehealth — which eliminates geographical constraints by using technology to help people receive timely medical care no matter where they are — is on the upswing. In fact, according to the National Business Group on Health, nine in 10 large employers will provide telehealth services to their employees in 2017. By 2019, NBG predicts, this number will leap to 97%.

Telemedicine may alleviate some of the struggles currently facing the health-care industry. We have an aging population, a shortage of physicians and an increasing need to manage chronic diseases. We also need to keep burgeoning health-care costs in check. Thanks to “constant technological innovation, increasing remote patient monitoring and rising use of treatments that require long follow-ups,” Mordor Intelligence predicts that the global telemedicine market will reach more than $34 billion by 2020.

Read the full post here.

Uberless Austin Needs To Stop Calling Itself The No. 1 City For Startups

Posted on by CALinnovates

By Kish Rajan

For the second year in a row Austin, Texas, is boasting that it is the No. 1 city for startups. That’s some nice PR, but the entrepreneurs trying to build the Silicon Valley of Texas likely don’t feel like they’re in a sophisticated tech hub. They can’t even use Uber.

Since May 9th, there have been no Ubers and no Lyfts in Austin. People who relied on the ridesharing companies to navigate the city have had to find other (more expensive or less convenient) ways to get around. And the thousands of people who were earning money as drivers? They’re out of work.

(Photo: TLVshac)
(Photo: TLVshac)

And it doesn’t look like that’s going to change any time soon. The City of Austin is vowing to keep its sharing economy unfriendly policies in place even if the state enacts new rules.

Austin’s title as top startup city comes from the Kauffman Index which ranks cities on things like the rate of entrepreneurial growth and the density of startup firms per 1,000 people. Those numbers show how entrepreneurial the city is. The population is ripe for something like Uber which not only makes it easier to get around but gives people a way to earn extra money while they are going to school, working on the great American novel or saving money to start their own business.

But Uber and Lyft are no longer an option for the people of Austin. The companies left the city after voters failed to change a law that requires transportation companies to do fingerprint background checks on their drivers.

Fingerprint checks are one of those things that seem like a great idea but when you dig a little deeper, they really don’t do all a concerned citizenry might expect. Fingerprint checks are expensive and they take a long time to get results. That’s a burden on potential drivers.

Then they don’t even catch all criminals. The checks are usually state based which means if someone committed a crime in another state it wouldn’t necessarily show up on a fingerprint background check.

Companies like Uber and Lyft want passengers to feel safe when they hail rides. So they do their own background searches on drivers through third parties that often do much more extensive searches than a fingerprint check. Austin’s fingerprint requirement wouldn’t have made riders any safer, it just would have made life harder for drivers.

Any city that puts up these kinds of barriers against an innovative tech company like Uber doesn’t have the right to call itself the top startup city in the nation. It doesn’t matter what the numbers say. Sometimes policies speak louder than numbers.

If Austin really wants to be seen as a viable competitor to Silicon Valley it should change its outdated regulations and make the fingerprint check requirement a thing of the past. Entrepreneurs are smart and mobile. Without rideshare companies, Austin stands to lose its standing next year as entrepreneurs flock to the next, more welcoming, tech hub.

Goodbye Payphones, Hello Progress

Posted on by Eli Love

by Kish Rajan

If Clark Kent wanted to turn into Superman in California today, he’d struggle to find a phone booth. Across the entire state there are only 27,000 payphones left, down 70% from 2007.

It’s no big surprise that the payphone is going the way of the dodo bird. According to the Pew Research Center 92% of American adults own cellphones. If you’re desperate to make a call and find yourself with a dead battery, chances are good you’re going to ask a friendly stranger to borrow their cell phone before you’re going to search out a payphone.

Late last month, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that acknowledges the demise of the payphone. SB 1055 puts an end to the Payphone Services Committee and the Payphone Service Providers Committee Fund which was being used to, among other things, “fund programs to … educate consumers on matters related to payphones.”

Let that sink in for a second. As a state, until a few weeks ago, we were still spending money to educate people about payphones — something the vast majority of citizens don’t want or need.

That’s pretty emblematic of how the legislature works when it comes to telecom. There are lots of outdated laws and committees and funds on the books but change comes incredibly slowly.

That’s why the death of the payphone committee is a small but symbolic step.

California should turn its attention to fixing other policies that keep outdated technology tethered to our streets and our homes even when we as a population have moved on.

Read the full post on Fox and Hounds here.

Palm Springs Airport Faces Growing Pains: Modernize or Marginalize

Posted on by Eli Love

by Mike Montgomery

Tonight, the Palm Springs City Council will make a decision about the future of the region’s airport that will move the Coachella Valley into the modern era, or leave it behind in the dusty past.

At issue is a vote to allow city staffers to consider regulations to let rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft pick up passengers at the airport. This matter should have been settled last month but instead of making a decision, the five members of the City Council kicked the can down the road, without even laying the groundwork for their staffers to begin the process of ushering in modern policies for Palm Springs International Airport (PSP).

It’s never an easy road for rideshare companies. The taxi lobby is deeply entrenched, moneyed and willing to fight for its dwindling market share rather than modernize and upgrade its offering. That fight is in conflict with consumer demand, which is clearly and quickly moving to rideshare companies.  Other major airports across the state, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose already allow Uber to pick up passengers. By keeping rideshare companies away from the airport, the City Council is turning the Palm Springs International Airport into a second-class transportation hub and marginalizing the area’s residents and tourists in the process.

Unfortunately, a cursory reading of the tealeaves indicates a disappointing outcome for rideshare companies. Currently, the City Council would likely vote against advancing this conversation. Never mind that this means rideshares can drop people off at the airport but not pick them up, a scheme that makes no sense to average people who are just looking for a ride. But such is the strength of the taxi lobby.  Common sense would lead one to believe that there is in fact no difference between allowing platform companies like Uber to drop off passengers (which is currently allowed) and pick them up, but the taxi lobby has done a phenomenal job of warding off competition and will continue doing so until the threat passes.

Taxi officials have raised the false specter of alcohol and drug testing as an excuse to keep rideshare companies away from the airport. But if you think drug and alcohol testing do anything to make rides safer, think again. Study after study has shown that these tests are wildly inaccurate, easy to manipulate, and provide no additional safety.

Similarly, the taxi industry is trying to force ridesharing to use their antiquated system of fingerprint-based background checks. Again, rideshare companies have already found more effective methods for making sure their drivers are being safe. They do comprehensive background checks, monitor rides in real-time and encourage riders to rate drivers and file complaints (again in real-time) if necessary. The taxi companies cannot offer this level of service to their customers.

But my voice doesn’t count in this vote and neither do the voices of elected officials and residents of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. The only people who matter are those five members of the City Council.

Uber recently circulated a petition in Palm Springs asking residents to voice their support for the continuation of the airport discussion — 3,000 people signed in one week. A taxi-led petition to stop the furtherance of Uber pickups at the airport garnered a mere 300 signatures. It’s clear that the people of Palm Springs, and its 1.5 million airport passengers, deserve to move into the future when it comes to their transportation choices.

The City Council should reconsider its stance in favor of pro-consumer policies rather than pro-incumbent protectionism and give the people what they want: an airport offering modern services for the modern era.

In reforming the PUC, Brown should replace commissioners

Posted on by Eli Love

by Mike Montgomery

Gov. Jerry Brown deserves credit for signing into law several pieces of legislation this year aimed at reforming the troubled Public Utilities Commission and advancing regulatory transparency in California. Upon signing this legislative package, Brown said, “These important reforms cannot wait another year” and called upon the PUC “to use its existing authority to take immediate action.”
Even so, wholesale institutional changes remain elusive and necessary. Critics of the commission remain concerned and are right to be asking what comes next. The governor has the opportunity to further right the ship to help meet the goals and objectives his office outlined for CPUC reform.

In addressing a lack of governance, transparency and accountability at the PUC, one element of the equation was overlooked – an examination of the appointed commissioners themselves.

The commission as a whole has demonstrated a lack of accountability and has lost the trust of the public it is sworn to protect. PUC President Michael Picker has been candid about the commission’s challenge to reform itself and “play well” with other state agencies. Picker has a mandate from the governor to reform the commission from the inside and not wait for further legislative action.

Under the commission’s watch, Californians have witnessed or experienced disaster after disaster leading to egregious environmental impacts and climate change implications that cannot be undone. Additionally, we have seen protracted decision-making, the shifting of cost burdens to ratepayers and an overall lack of accountability.

An obvious next step on the path toward solving many of the PUC’s vexing challenges are changes to the commission itself. Some of the current commissioners – particularly the longest-serving – have lost public trust, and basic PUC reform is not enough to gain back that trust. California needs commissioners dedicated to acting within the governor’s reform agenda.

With Commissioners Mike Florio and Catherine Sandoval’s appointment terms coming to an end, the governor has the opportunity to replace, rather than reappoint, and send a clear message to the public that accountability begins now.

The record of this commission demands an infusion of new blood, and the governor should use his power of appointment to make it clear that accountability is the new order of the day across the many industries regulated by the PUC.

The governor is in the perfect position to continue his reforms by replacing these commissioners with new candidates who can restore trust and build a commission dedicated to public safety, governance, transparency and accountability.

The PUC requires a makeover. The process should start now.

Why Clinton And Trump Need To Talk About Technology At The Next Debate

Posted on by Eli Love

Technology is central to our lives. But you wouldn’t know it by listening to the candidates.

By Kish Rajan

This week’s debate between vice presidential candidates Mike Pence and Tim Kaine was the second time we’ve seen candidates come together on the national stage to discuss the issues. For the second time, technology was basically left out of the conversation.

I guess that shouldn’t have come as a huge surprise. This year’s election, more than any other I can remember, has been more about emotion than substance. The most important issues seem to be getting pushed to the sidelines in favor of personal jabs.

But I can’t help feeling disappointed. These debates have been a real missed opportunity. Tech is quickly becoming the driver of our economy. According to the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, STEM jobs are growing at 13% per year, faster than any other sector. Tech jobs pay some of the highest wages, and for every new tech job, 4.3 more jobs are created in other fields thanks to the multiplier effect, according to the Bay Area Council.

At the same time, tech is decimating some industries and forever changing the nature of work. As technology makes everything from buying our groceries to writing news stories easier, traditional jobs are being lost and they’re not coming back. This is something our leaders need to face head on.

In the first debate, Hillary Clinton made a glancing reference to the power of innovation to create new jobs, but it was far from enough.

There’s a lot at stake in this election. In order to help grow the technology industry and protect workers, we need to modernize tax policies, come up with new strategies for education and workforce development, increase access to capital to start new businesses and reform regulations. These issues need to become part of the conversation.

Immigration is top of mind for many tech entrepreneurs but not in the way the candidates talk about it. Silicon Valley doesn’t want to keep immigrants out; it wants to let them in. The leaders in the Bay Area want to make it easier for entrepreneurs and engineers to cross our borders so new companies can be founded and others can hire the best and the brightest, no matter what country they’re from.

Then there is the sharing economy — I call it the Personal Enterprise Economy — which is growing in leaps and bounds. Companies such as Uber, Airbnb and Task Rabbit are remaking the economy in incredibly fundamental ways. A job is no longer for life; that’s just reality. These new companies are opening up new opportunities for people who may be underemployed or who just want more flexibility to control their own work life.

That doesn’t mean we don’t need regulations here to protect both workers and consumers. The choices the government makes about those regulations will have an enormous impact on whether or not this industry and its workers thrive.

And this new, tech-driven, future of work means that we need to rethink things such as tax breaks and benefits. Obamacare was a good start in that it gave everyone the chance to get health care without having to stay beholden to a specific employer. But we need to go further. More benefits need to be portable, sticking to the worker not the employer. We need to talk about things like wage insurance and evolving our tax code to reflect the changing nature of work.

There’s also the digital divide, a serious problem that is rarely publicly discussed among elite politicians. While at the top end of the economic scale people have access to iPhones, lightning-fast broadband and the newest whiz-bang wearables, too often people at the bottom are struggling with dial-up service if they have any access to the internet at all.

In order for this lower-income group to thrive, they need to be able to have steady broadband access, not just to be able to keep in touch with loved ones and take advantage of growing entertainment opportunities. This is much-needed technology that will allow them to apply for jobs, get online training and access benefits that are increasingly going digital.

Closing this divide needs to be a priority for our government. It would be great if our next president acknowledged this and talked about ways to fix the problem.

Technology can help create new jobs and move the economy forward but it can also leave people behind in its wake. We need to be dealing with both sides of the issue.

There are two more debates on the schedule. I’ll be watching next Sunday’s town hall closely to see if the candidates talk more about technology. I hope they will. Personal insults and clever one-liners are great for reality TV. But they don’t help much when it comes to leadership.

CALinnovates Statement Regarding the FCC’s Revamped Privacy Proposal

Posted on by Eli Love

October 7, 2016

“This version, like the first, falls woefully short in its noble goal to safeguard consumer data and increase transparency for the public. Subjecting the exact same data to different and arbitrary rules depending upon a company’s primary offering in today’s era of vertical integration does not increase consumer privacy. It is also blind to the realities of the marketplace. We need 21st Century privacy rules to govern a 21st Century data market.” said Tim Sparapani, CALinnovates’ senior policy counsel.

“Chairman Wheeler has indicated that some favored companies will be allowed to practice permissionless innovation outside the FCC’s jurisdiction while other disfavored entities must operate under the microscope despite the fact that the data is one in the same. Businesses of all types today are data companies first and foremost, whether they make software or deliver internet access – or both. And innovation can and should spring from all types of companies, ISPs included.”

“Today, Verizon owns Yahoo, AOL and Huffington Post, and the line between ISPs and edge providers has been increasingly blurred. Consumers will be no better off under this scheme than the previous one, but they may be worse off than they are today.”

“This is a referendum on innovation and an affront to consumers who expect more and demand better. No matter how Chairman Wheeler tries to spin it, his latest iteration of the FCC’s privacy proposal is nothing more than lipstick on a pig,” said Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates.

“CALinnovates encourages Chairman Wheeler to return to the drawing board to rewrite the rules one more time. Better yet, the FCC should seek further public input as well as guidance from Congress and the FTC, which has the longstanding privacy expertise the FCC lacks.”

CALinnovates is a non-partisan coalition of tech companies, founders, funders and non-profits determined to make the new economy a reality.