Making the NHS a Global Brand

The current debate about the future of the NHS starts with a correct observation, which is that continuing in its current form is untenable.  As the population ages and we get more complex treatment regimes, then, unless we change our approach to healthcare, the numbers don’t add up.  But all the Government’s proposed reforms are doing is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I’d like to suggest something more radical, which is to think about how to make it self-funding, without increasing the strain on the public purse.  Not by privatising it, but by extracting value from it and then exporting that value.  In other words, let’s see if we can make the NHS a global brand and turn it into something that can generate revenue.

Before you dismiss it, stop and think.  We’ve already done it with the BBC, which Superbrands rates as the fifth strongest brand in the UK.  The BBC is respected and earns money around the world.  Why don’t we think of the NHS in the same way?  It doesn’t feature in any list of brands because nobody thinks of it like that.  But there are some very good reasons why it should, particularly if we want it to be affordable in the future.  The current Government (and every one before it) is missing a trick.

The NHS probably contains more data about treatment and outcomes than any other medical institution in the world.  And so it should.  For much of its life it’s been one of the world’s largest employers, accumulating detailed information on generations of the UK’s 60 million citizens.  That’s an awful lot of “big data”.   So here’s the question – “If we could extract and monetise that value, could we make the NHS pay for itself?”  We need to extract that value and use it, then export the resulting expertise to make money from the rest of the world.

Read More

A UK Roadmap for Smart Metering HANs

One of the eternal complaints about short range wireless is its limited range, particularly when used within homes.  Whilst the name “short range wireless” ought to give a clue about the existence of the problem, it doesn’t stop a general level of indignation when a radio signal doesn’t make it through the walls of your house.

Up until now this was mostly an annoyance, largely because it was a personal problem.  By that I mean it was an inconvenient truth that individuals discovered when they bought a consumer wireless product, whether that was a Wi-Fi access point, a cordless phone or a mobile headset.  As these were generally low cost, discretionary purchases, users either took them back, put them in a cupboard and forgot about them, or worked around the problem by moving the appropriate access point.  For the more technically engaged, a raft of companies grew up making repeaters, range extenders, power amplifiers and directional antennae, allowing users to exacerbate the problem by swamping all of their neighbours’ installations.

In the last year people have started to take the middle word of “short range wireless” rather more seriously.  That’s come about as governments around the world have mandated deployments of smart meters.  Whilst no-one cared too much if a consumer product didn’t work, smart meters are a different kettle of fish.  They need to be able to connect with the other components of the smart metering wireless network in the home in order to send consumption data back to the utilities.  They have to do that reliably and regularly over a period of many years.  And they need to be able to cope with a wide variety of homes – from small bungalows to multi-storey apartment buildings.  All of a sudden that “range” word is getting a lot of attention.

The problem is that the wireless standards being considered don’t cover 100% of different homes.  Any one standard probably struggles with covering much more than 75% of potential homes.  That’s a big problem for regulators and civil servants who have a very black and white view of life – when a mandate says “all”, they assume that means every last home.  So what can they do?

Read More