healthy4u

Are the Health Plans of the Very Rich Different from Yours and Mine?

Yesterday, the New York Times published an intriguing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/health/policy/27insure.html">story</a> about "Cadillac" (that is, expensive) health insurance plans, <blockquote> Goldman Sachs is one of the nation’s richest banks, and hundreds of top Goldman employees have a health care package to match — one of the 'gold-plated Cadillac' plans cited by those involved in the health care debate in Washington. Goldman’s 400 or so managing directors and its top executive officers participate in the bank’s executive medical and dental program as part of their benefits, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The program generally costs the bank $40,543 in premiums annually for each participant’s family. Those taking part in the plan include the company’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and four other top officers, as well as managing directors, whose base salary is $600,000. Goldman’s medical coverage entered the health care discussion on Sunday when David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, cited the Goldman program as an example of the expensive benefits the administration might consider taxing to help pay for its health care program. 'The president actually was asked this the other day by Jim Lehrer, and what he said was that this was an intriguing idea to put an excise tax on high-end health care policies like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have, the $40,000 policies,' Mr. Axelrod said. A proposal by Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would impose an excise tax on the insurers that issue policies like Goldman’s, with the expectation that the insurers would pass along most, if not all, of the cost to employers who buy the plans. Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, which is working on bipartisan version of the health care legislation in Congress, had long expressed interest in taxing some employer-provided benefits — a move many budget experts say would help slow the steep rise in health costs. Negotiators have not yet determined the value of the plans that would set off a tax on the insurance companies; the numbers under discussion range from $20,000 to $40,000 annually, a senior administration official said. The lower end of that range would increase the amount of money the tax would raise but would also hit some middle-class workers, whose unions in some cases negotiated robust health benefits in lieu of pay increases. Typical employer-provided plans cost $13,000 to $20,000 per family, depending on the location and the age of the plan participants. A health care package costing $40,000 or more a year would generally have no co-payments or deductibles, according to Paul Fronstin, an analyst at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a Washington nonprofit that studies benefits. It would also have no limits on doctors or procedures, no restrictions on pre-existing conditions and no requirements for referrals. Few people have such policies, Mr. Fronstin said. 'It would only be top executives who run big businesses, mainly people in the C suite,' said Mr. Fronstin, referring to companies’ chief officers. </blockquote> It was not clear from this article how many top corporate executives have such plans, and whether leaders of other kinds of organizations, like large not-for-profits, also have them. My main concern about such plans is not how much they contribute to top corporate leaders' compensation packages. Such packages are generally already so outrageously huge that providing $40,000 rather than $13,000 worth of health insurance is a trivial increase. My concern is not that plan recipients' demands for health care will collectively increase health care costs, because they include only a tiny portion of the population. My main concern, instead, is how much these plans further insulate already cocooned top executives from the vicissitudes of daily life, particularly related to coping with our current dysfunctional health care system. What benefits executive health care plans provide is not clear, but presumably they insulate executives from having to deal with the managed care/ health insurance bureaucracy which frustrates patients seeking particular services, but not necessarily the most expensive, or least beneficial services. Such executives might thus not have gut level appreciation of how dysfunctional the health care system has become for even insured patients. Since top executives often are disproportionately influential members of the "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/superclass">superclass</a>," their disconnection from the realities of dysfunctional health care is likely to translate into little real support by the powers that be for meaningful health care reform. There support may be further retarded by the influence of their fellow superclass members whose personal fortunes depend on the status quo in health care. Real improvement of health care may depend on finding leaders who have better understanding of the plight of real people.

Are the Health Plans of the Very Rich Different from Yours and Mine?

Yesterday, the New York Times published an intriguing story about "Cadillac" (that is, expensive) health insurance plans, Goldman...

Đọc thêm »

Announcing the 10 Days in Google Books game

Which infamous book thief got caught stealing from the Chicago Public Library and was later acquitted on grounds of insanity? How many European cities are mentioned in Karen Fowler's "The Jane Austen Book Club?" And can you figure out what curious objects Dorothy is picking from a tree in this illustration from Frank Baum's "Ozma of Oz?" <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlYJENkQ3uyj2sjkEScqiSK0eDXcxnf4QD_6NMFB-41ALPnJEK9g958EAZ9nXtWP7JLKK3ULvu-UV8s_lFUqgh7Ksx1Q-YJkgPSgpDf-rxUnl1X4_QV3-Xj3TcuMwaYYd5U7HilIHBw4kK/s1600-h/books1.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5363180930433724594" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlYJENkQ3uyj2sjkEScqiSK0eDXcxnf4QD_6NMFB-41ALPnJEK9g958EAZ9nXtWP7JLKK3ULvu-UV8s_lFUqgh7Ksx1Q-YJkgPSgpDf-rxUnl1X4_QV3-Xj3TcuMwaYYd5U7HilIHBw4kK/s400/books1.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 289px; height: 400px;" /></a> Stumped? Find the answers to these and other fun questions in the <a href="http://books.google.com/game">10 Days in Google Books game</a>. Each day, we'll ask you five trivia questions on a different theme. Search <a href="http://books.google.com/">Google Books</a> to find the answers with hints to help you along the way. After you answer each day's questions, you can enter a contest to win a Sony Reader. If you enjoy the game, come back the next day for another set of questions — and another chance to win. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhobbpw4g8MWdZHFuEvdqL_YpiUA0hiE4Lm75MQAxk4a7RPQX5zsLW4r4vVT6s8df2cNbdYf_w8fjibKC0hfqUlBRxboapvCrTzfVrQbZ905bovvRGB8Gliie8yuch57DxVcnc5CMnsEw5b/s1600-h/Books2.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5363181083101871602" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhobbpw4g8MWdZHFuEvdqL_YpiUA0hiE4Lm75MQAxk4a7RPQX5zsLW4r4vVT6s8df2cNbdYf_w8fjibKC0hfqUlBRxboapvCrTzfVrQbZ905bovvRGB8Gliie8yuch57DxVcnc5CMnsEw5b/s400/Books2.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 259px;" /></a> For official rules, including prize descriptions, visit <a href="http://books.google.com/game">http://books.google.com/game</a>. (Please note: Some books may not be available in full view to those outside the United States.) The first 20,000 people to play the game will also receive commemorative Google Books laptop stickers. So all you bookworms out there, <a href="http://books.google.com/googlebooks/game">start playing</a> now! Posted by Hicham Alaoui, Associate Product Marketing Manager, Google Books

Announcing the 10 Days in Google Books game

Which infamous book thief got caught stealing from the Chicago Public Library and was later acquitted on grounds of insanity? How many Europ...

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - Reports from the ACRE Meeting

The proceedings at the first meeting of the benignly titled Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) was chronicled on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog <a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2009/07/acre-meeting-welcome-to-anger-village.html">here</a>, and on Postscript, the Prescription Project blog <a href="http://blog.prescriptionproject.org/?p=733">here</a>. ACRE, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/07/stossel-and-acre-wheres-beef.html">founded by Dr Thomas Stossel </a>(see relevant post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/04/can-people-with-conflicts-of-interest.html">here</a> on the sorts of arguments Dr Stossel has made), was founded to defend academics who are paid on the side by drug, biotechnology, and device companies from the complaints of the "pharmascolds." What I found most troubling was that the conference was officially opened by Dr Jeffrey Flier, the Dean of the Harvard medical school, implying a medical school endorsement of this group, and featured presentations by the presidents of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and the American Society of Hypertension, implying endorsement by these medical societies. But also see<a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlats-take-on-acre-some-ruminations.html"> the comments </a>by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog that there may be a silver lining to this cloud.

BLOGSCAN - Reports from the ACRE Meeting

The proceedings at the first meeting of the benignly titled Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) was chronicled on the C...

Đọc thêm »

How "Independent" a Source of Health Care Reform Data?

This week, a Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203696.html">article</a> discussed who provides the data being cited in the ongoing US debate about health care reform. <blockquote> The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option. To Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House Republican whip, it is 'the nonpartisan Lewin Group.' To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an 'independent research firm.' To Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is 'well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country.' </blockquote> But how independent is the Lewin group? <blockquote> Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers. More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied UnitedHealth and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the 'reasonable and customary' doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care. In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994. Ingenix's chief executive, Andrew Slavitt, said the company's data was never biased, but Ingenix nonetheless agreed to exit that particular line of business. 'The data didn't have the appearance of independence that's necessary for it to be useful,' Slavitt said. Lewin Group Vice President John Sheils said his firm had nothing to do with the Ingenix reimbursement data. Lewin has gone through 'a terribly difficult adjustment' since it was bought by UnitedHealth in 2007, he said, because the corporate ownership 'does create the appearance of a conflict of interest.' 'It hasn't affected . . . the work we do, and I think people who know me know that I am not a good liar,' Sheils said. </blockquote> Is it only an appearance of conflict, and how objective is the Lewin Group's work? <blockquote> Lewin's clients include the government and groups with a variety of perspectives, including the Commonwealth Fund and the Heritage Foundation. A February report by the firm contained information that could be used to argue for a national system known as single-payer, the approach most threatening to insurers, Sheils noted. But not all of Lewin's reports see the light of day. 'Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study,' Sheils said. </blockquote> So, in summary, a group providing ostensibly "independent" data and opinions about an important health care policy debate is actually a subsidiary of a commercial managed care organization/ health care insurance company which clearly has vested interests in certain policy options. While the consulting group apparently struggles to be objective, its top leader reported that is fashions its reports at the behest of its clients, and that clients can "bury" reports that offend them, possibly because they do not serve their vested interests. It is not surprising that participants in the current, noisy debate about health care reform, like many other health policy debates, have vested interests, and that their positions are likely to promote these interests. However, what should at least be disturbing is how often those with vested interests try to appear to be disinterested and independent. Should we trust "independent" voices that actually are conflicted, or those who cite "independent" views that actually come from interested parties? By the way, we first posted about the Lewin Group's actual status as an Ingenix, and hence UnitedHealth subsidiary <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/01/who-is-warning-us-about-shortage-of.html">here</a> in January, 2009, and first posted about how its contribution to the current health care reform debate was being touted as independent <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-warning-us-about-perils-of.html">here</a> in April, 2009. That a news organization with the status of the Washington Post is now picking up this story suggests a little optimism that the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/08/bling-bling-poltical-correctness-and.html">anechoic effect </a>might be weakening.

How "Independent" a Source of Health Care Reform Data?

This week, a Washington Post article discussed who provides the data being cited in the ongoing US debate about health care reform. The pol...

Đọc thêm »

Physicians Down Under Get Direct About Danger of Bad HIT

Too often, physicians acquiese to demands by hospital executives that they adjust to and use health IT, even if that health IT is flawed. This is despite the fact that liability for patient care resides with the physicians, not the HIT vendor or executives. Several physicians Down Under have had enough: <blockquote><a href="http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/story/2009/07/23/doctors-issue-a-deadly-warning/">Doctors issue deadly warning</a> Daily Examiner, Grafton, Australia David Bancroft | 23rd July 2009 It seems incredible that a patient record system that aims to improve treatment could kill people [not so incredible to the informed - e.g., see "<a href="http://iig.umit.at/efmi/badinformatics.htm">Bad Informatics Can Kill</a>" - ed.], but that is a claim being made about a new system that is almost certainly going to be introduced into the Grafton Base Hospital next week. Earlier this month, leading health officials from the Lismore Base Hospital wrote to the North Coast Area Health Service (NCAHS) claiming a new Surginet electronic medical record system that had been operating in the hospital for several months would 'inevitably' lead to the death of patients. But the health service said changes had been made to the Surginet electronic medical record (EMR) system since the concerns were raised by the four senior clinicians on July 2, and the system had been operating 'satisfactorily' in Sydney without patient concerns being raised. ["Without concerns raised" does not mean they do not exist - ed.] In their letter to NCAHS chief executive officer Chris Crawford, which was copied to the Minister for Health John Della Bosca, the four medical specialists said there had been recurring problems over several months and 'these have not improved'. “This has resulted in unnecessary compromise of patient safety,” they wrote. “There have been repeated well demonstrated cases of near miss disasters due to these problems. [Will patients be as lucky the next time? - ed.] “We believe that negative patient outcomes, including death, will inevitably result from the continuing use of this system. “Surginet is fundamentally flawed. “New technology should: improve the quality of our work; help us to be more efficient, and; make routine tasks easier. “EMR Surginet does none of these; in fact it has had the opposite effect. “We believe that the Surginet EMR system is unsafe and will result in patient morbidity and mortality.” Surginet was to be implemented at the Grafton Base Hospital yesterday, but after concerns were raised with the area health service, implementation was delayed until next Wednesday. A health service spokesman said the implementation had been delayed so the software producers, Cerner [an American company behind the HIT products that caused difficulty in the UK - see the UK House of Commons report <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/153/15304.htm">here</a>, esp. points 5 and 6 - ed.], could speak with Grafton surgeons and anaesthetists prior to the implementation about any concerns they may have. “NCAHS takes any concerns raised about patient safety seriously and is addressing these,” the spokesman said. “It should be emphasised that Surginet is operating satisfactorily in Sydney hospitals without patient safety concerns being raised. [Again, that does not mean they do not exist; clinicians may be afraid to speak out and working furiously to establish workarounds to problems - ed.] “It is a system used worldwide that can be adapted to accommodate local work practices in NSW hospitals. ["Can be adapted" - anything "can be adapted". But has this application actually been adapted to the culture in NSW hospitals? - ed.] “Arrangements are being made for discussions to be held with the department heads by representatives of the EMR project team and Cerner.” The spokesman said Surginet had recently been introduced at the Maclean Hospital and there had been no complaints and the NCAHS had actually received a letter of thanks from the hospital. [A letter of thanks from whom at the hospital, exactly, and based on what substantive claims? - ed.] </blockquote> Such discrepancies between one hospital and the next regarding HIT require critical evaluation - erring on the side of patient safety, not IT vendor convenience. Considering the aforementioned UK House of Commons report and the "near miss disasters" mentioned by the Australian physicians, such due diligence is mandatory in my opinion. Further, American physicians can probably learn from these Australian counterparts in being vocal about HIT problems. -- SS

Physicians Down Under Get Direct About Danger of Bad HIT

Too often, physicians acquiese to demands by hospital executives that they adjust to and use health IT, even if that health IT is flawed. T...

Đọc thêm »

Inquiry to Joint Commission on points I raised in my July 22, 2009 JAMA letter on HIT

As I posted <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/07/health-care-information-technology.html">here</a>, my letter "Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards" was published in JAMA on July 22, 2009. A preview of the letter can be seen <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/302/4/382">here</a>, or a full version <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/4/382">here</a> if you subscribe to JAMA. This JAMA letter covered some of the same points I addressed extensively at my Drexel HIT website essay "<a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/failurecases/?loc=cases&sloc=koppel_kreda">Hold Harmless and Keep Defects Secret Clauses</a>", including the major point that hospital executives signing HIT "Hold Harmless" and "Defects Nondisclosure" contracts are in violation of Joint Commission standards for conduct related to safety, and in violation of their fiduciary responsibilities towards patient and employee safety and freedom from undue liability. I've sent the following inquiry to Paul M. Schyve, M.D., Senior Vice President, The Joint Commission: <blockquote>July 24, 2009 Paul M. Schyve, M.D. Senior Vice President The Joint Commission <a class="Addr" title="Create new mail memo with this address" href="javascript:noop()" onclick="BuK('schyve%40jointcommission.org')">schyve@jointcommission.org</a> Cc: <a class="Addr" title="Create new mail memo with this address" href="javascript:noop()" onclick="BuK('MChassin%40jointcommission.org')">MChassin@jointcommission.org</a>, <a class="Addr" title="Create new mail memo with this address" href="javascript:noop()" onclick="BuK('otrippi%40jointcommission.org')">otrippi@jointcommission.org</a> Dear Dr. Schyve, In testimony to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on July 22, 2009 <a target="blank" href="http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=45015&Newsid=438&Name=%20Paul%20M.%20Schyve,%20M.D.">at this link </a>, you state: ... The Joint Commission has established standards that require the hospital to: <ul style="margin-left: 40px;" type="disc"><li>Create a culture in which adverse events are reported and evaluated for underlying ("root") causes, and preventative actions are taken. </li><li>Identify high-risk processes and prospectively determine their possible modes of failure, the effects of those failures, and the actions that will prevent the failures or mitigate their effects. </li><li>Establish a culture of safety throughout the hospital. This accreditation standard became effective January 1, 2009, although its purpose and expectations were publicized for over a year in advance. </li></ul> In my JAMA letter to the editor of July 22, 2009 entitled " Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards" ( <a target="blank" href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/302/4/382">link </a>), I point out that the Hold Harmless and Defects Nondisclosure clauses signed by hospital executives in contracting for healthcare information technology (such as CPOE and EHR systems) are in violation of Joint Commission safety standards, as well as hospital executive fiduciary responsibilities to patients and clinicians. These clinical IT systems can and do cause medical errors and patient harm. My letter was in response to Koppel and Kreda's March 25, 2009 article " <a target="blank" href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/301/12/1276">Health Care Information Technology Vendors' "Hold Harmless" Clause: Implications for Patients and Clinicians </a>", JAMA. 2009;301(12):1276-1278. I am interested in the Joint Commission's response to the issues I raise. </blockquote>I await a response. -- SS

Inquiry to Joint Commission on points I raised in my July 22, 2009 JAMA letter on HIT

As I posted here , my letter " Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards " was...

Đọc thêm »

Announcing the 2009 Google Online Marketing Challenge winners

This year we held the second <a href="http://www.google.com/onlinechallenge">Google Online Marketing Challenge</a> — a global university competition, launched <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/students-surf-their-way-to-success.html">last year</a>, that gives undergraduate and post-graduate students hands-on exposure to online marketing. Working with their professors, teams receive the equivalent of US$200 to spend on Google AdWords advertising, then work with a local business to devise an effective online marketing campaign. Teams are given three weeks to mastermind the strategy before submitting a campaign report to an international judging panel of professors. This year's Challenge was bigger and better in every way — more teams, more students, more universities and a significant improvement in the quality of campaigns and reports. We're thrilled to report that 2,187 teams took part from across 57 countries, representing a 36% increase in participation from last year. The Challenge continues to develop as one of the world’s biggest university competitions. We're excited today to announce the results. Our global winners come from Deakin University, Australia and were taught by Chia Yao Lee and Bardo Fraunholz. The team of Andrew Kidd, Richard Blakely, Kevin Fung, Clinton Hinze, Katalin Kish and Howard Lien worked with a local kids play center, www.littletigrrs.com.au, to create a well-crafted campaign that highly impressed our judges. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKu1IHSmDQENRQKS17M1ESmj7-JD_EvIk3PM3L6fNPzzEHl_vTYXQyoOv2b1Tl-YKeQ8jaIUs4-jffwWPL2in83C4V4jV7k_I3w1AOgy0HWk1qdPn49szcplhKBOaBWPg18cZnn-tKuwtn/s1600-h/Deakin-Uni---LittleTigrrs-Montage.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5361742378326156802" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKu1IHSmDQENRQKS17M1ESmj7-JD_EvIk3PM3L6fNPzzEHl_vTYXQyoOv2b1Tl-YKeQ8jaIUs4-jffwWPL2in83C4V4jV7k_I3w1AOgy0HWk1qdPn49szcplhKBOaBWPg18cZnn-tKuwtn/s400/Deakin-Uni---LittleTigrrs-Montage.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 189px;" /></a> <div style="text-align: center;">Clockwise from top left: Richard Blakely, Chia Yao Lee (professor), Katalin Kish, Kevin Fung, Bardo Fraunholz (professor), Howard Lien, Andrew Kidd, Fiona and Mike (from Little Tigrrs), Clinton Hinze and Mick, The Big Hearted Tiger </div> Team spokesman Andrew Kidd gave us some insight into their winning campaign: <blockquote>"After discussions with the business owners, we decided we needed to conduct three separate campaigns. One would promote the play center to customers outside a 10 kilometre geographic radius, another would attract more mothers' groups to the center, and the third one would attract more party and group event bookings. Visitors to their website more than doubled compared with the same period last year. We knew we had developed a strong campaign — but to win the global competition is outstanding."</blockquote>The team and their professor are off to Mountain View, California for a tour of the Googleplex. To help in their ongoing studies, each team member will also receive an Apple MacBook Pro. There were also three regional winners: for the Americas, the winning team comes from James Madison University in the U.S., while a team from the Warsaw School of Economics in Poland won for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. In the Asia Pacific region, the winners come from the International College of Management in Sydney, Australia. Here are <a href="http://www.google.com/onlinechallenge/2009winners.html">more details about our winners</a>. We developed the Challenge to benefit everyone involved. We're delighted that thousands of small businesses around the world have seen their online presence improved in just three weeks. Professors tell us that the Challenge has allowed them to deliver a unique, practical teaching and learning exercise. For those students that took part, we hope they have developed some useful online marketing skills which they can use when they graduate and enter the workforce. For anyone interested in competing in the 2010 Challenge, formal registrations will open later this year, but in the meantime you can <a href="http://services.google.com/events/marketing_challenge_2009_reg">register your interest</a>. Posted by Lee Hunter, Product Marketing Manager

Announcing the 2009 Google Online Marketing Challenge winners

This year we held the second Google Online Marketing Challenge — a global university competition, launched last year , that gives undergra...

Đọc thêm »