iRobot CEO: Robot nurses to cut health care costs

BERLIN--In the midst of America's raging debate on the future of health insurance, one man says he has a solution to out-of-control health care costs: more robots.

A prototype robotic telepresence "nurse."

(Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)

Of course, this is coming from Colin Angle, a roboticist and CEO of iRobot, the company that makes both robotic vacuum cleaners and bomb-defusing gadgets currently in use by the U.S. military. At IFA here on Friday, he said that robotic telepresence devices, which would act like nurses in a person's home, could reduce the $2.2 trillion, or 17 percent of the U.S. GDP, currently spent on health care every year.

Angle insisted that when it comes to elderly people staying at home instead of moving to a nursing home, or a sick patients that don't need care such as surgery, "all of the things over time can be done with robots."

He's not talking about the kind of robot that the average person might think of, like Rosie from "The Jetsons" or Honda's Asimo. (In fact, Angle says those anthropomorphic style bots are "a technological marvel, but nearly, utterly useless.") Rather, the robotic nurses he has in mind look more like a machine than a man; more similar to the Roomba and Scooba household robots that Angle helped invent.

Instead of patients with chronic illnesses constantly going to a hospital for even minor treatments and checkups, a telepresence device could act as a proxy for the doctor to check in on them. The robot could examine, diagnose, and make sure a prescription is administered on the right schedule. The patient, in other words, wouldn't have to set foot in a hospital unless he or she needs care that is only available there.

The same model would cut the cost of nursing homes for aging people with a diminished ability to perform normal household tasks. In the future, robots are expected to be able to handle tasks such as daily medical reminders, cleaning the house, preparing food, and transportation.

The Roomba, from iRobot.

(Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)

While robots aren't cheap, neither are hospital visits. And Angle says he's encouraged by the money that people are already spending on home automation systems and devices. He says that half a million people in the U.S. last year spent between $2,000 and $3,000 each on equipment such as security monitoring services, and that in the next three years, that number will jump to over 7 million. In other words, the idea of spending money to keep an eye on things in your home isn't a totally foreign concept.

Skeptical about robot "nurses"? Angle says he's heard that reaction before. "Our biggest problem is that nobody believes robots work. It's like science fiction," he said.

The sales of Roombas and Scoobas, and the $35 million order that iRobot took from the U.S. Army earlier this week certainly aren't fictional, but there's quite a ways to go before robots can actually do all the things he has in mind. The company's first product, the Roomba vacuum cleaner, took 10 years to develop, while its iConnectr telepresence robot is limited compared to what he envisions for the future.

"That's a start," he said. "I admit we've only taken the first few steps."

[shootfirst]

I don't think its that people don't believe robots work, I just think they are worried about robots pushing people out of jobs. Seems rather cold that you are telling people they need to deal with a robot instead of a real person just because it saves money. Plus why would a robot be better at some of these actions instead of a simple webcam and a device with your medication schedule on it that reminds you like a modified watch. Also are these robots going to go to med school to do diagnosis and what happens when the robot is wrong, do they have malpractice insurance?

[barrerajeremy]

This may take down our trillions of dollars debt. But what about all of the unemployment rates. Lets put a dent on the countries debt but screw the people that live in it.

[i-arman]

There is a huge shortage of just about every medical position out there. This wouldn't replace a nurse's job with a robot - it would fill a need, or at least allowing the nurse to do other (possibly more important) work.

On top of that, someone needs to build the robots. Someone else needs to maintain them. Yet another person is needed to oversee the robots' duties.

Besides, this argument has been used again and again. Sure, there will be some jobs lost to technology. Elevator operators, for instance. Or telephone switchboard operators. Or, for that matter, the entire horse-drawn-carriage industry. But the overall result is a great benefit. Or would you rather we still rode horses and had to hire someone to pull elevators up and down?

[bobp64]

Huge shoftfall of what medical positions? Up here in the North East we have plenty of nurses that are out of work. I know of several other people that have been laid off with all the medical facility merging that's going on.

To call these things "robots" is really someone stretching their imagination. They're really more like an intelligent portable patient monitoring system. They're useful to monitor things like heart rate, blood pressure, remind you about medication, heck you could even build in a medication pump and/or dispensor if you wanted to, but the word "robot" where the physical movement and action of the device would have a meaningful purpose is going too far.

The most important thing these devices could do that was robotic would be to follow the person around and, perhaps determine if the person has fallen and dial 911, or, send an alert to the doctor's office if something is not up to snuff with the patient - a bit more proactive than waiting until a normal dr. visit.

Robot - nah - really just an intelligent toaster (from the movie iRobot)...

[odubtaig]

Is this an article or a sales pitch?

[WinNoMo]

Fatal Error

[inachu1]

Can you imagin someone leaving their entire estate in their will to their Robot?

Hahaha it will happen one day.