I have found Gregg's comments most provocative – lot's to think about. The issue of 'ownership' of the off-line convo is interesting and this will evolve as the our numbers increase. Influence is a real concern, however. Despite its start, I'd be surprised if we were to see SXSH continue in the model of Healthcamp. Sydney's question is key: How will SXSH evolve to be different from existing meetings?

Fran and Meredith add the voices of stakeholders who will continue to materialize as social health evolves and changes.

I so agree with Chimoose (Greg Matthews). Despite the interest in busting silos I feel that SXSH remained a relatively segregated event and we have to work towards cross-fertilization.

Phil's comments stand on their own. And I have to say that seeing everyone huddled around a speaker listening to you at SXSH was priceless.

And Marc, the taste of the BBQ Salt Lick was surpassed only by pleasure of seeing Ed Bennett take a picture of it (we gotta get him to Texas more often).

Is it possible to succeed despite this year's success? That is, how can we grow the gathering while maintaining the engaged, friendly, human scale of this year's meeting? Of all the meetings I've attended over the last year, this was the smallest and also the most thoughtful and creative. That's no coincidence. Chris Brogan dealt with some of this in the context of SXSW http://bit.ly/929Him

How can we better differentiate SXSH from e-Patient Connections, Health2.0, ExL Digital Pharma, etc. by reaching beyond the usual suspects to tap both the interactive and film resources of SXSW and to include the experience of colleagues outside the marketing function? (And, to Marc's point, e-patients, clinicians, providers.)

Can we find ways to better enable the participation of those unable to travel to Austin during SXSW (when, as Guy Kawasaki points out, the Horrible Hilton raises room rates to $500/night), as @lostonroute66 asked? What can we use besides Twitter to reach outside the conference room?

Should a conference like this be more than a place for sharing ideas and business promotion? Are there areas where we should be seeking agreement on standards, policies, practices that would further the common goal of using social media and technology to improve health?

The next year will give us time to think about what happens next, and to digest all the bar-b-que and Tex-Mex we ate.

Thanks to Dr. V for a terrific wrap-up

Get involved with HealthCamp at http://healthca.mp.

[Warning: long, laborious comment here.]

I see SXSH is another layer in the ongoing and evolving efforts by various parties who are interested in integrating emerging media and technologies into the entire spectrum of health care, from wellness to death.

There have been HealthCamps going on for some time to.

And I'm glad that #RNchat (http://RNchat.org) was given the opportunity to present via Skype as well. I've been developing the community of nurses, because honestly nursing is the one profession which answers the question: "What is the effect of all these events that transpire during health care on the human being?"

That's an important question – it's fundamental in any discussion about social media in health care.

You know me: I'm rather I express a certain "contrarian" voice in this discussions.

It's not enough to port in the philosophy of Chris Brogan and Tim O'Reilly into health care social media.

That SXSH is trying to be an SXSW analogue is a welcome first step. But I would argue that we must be cautious about replicating the "Web 2.0" Kool Aid (not all of it is Kool Aid, but I've been seeing a trend).

For instance, @LiveStrong claimed the following about social media changing healthcare forever:

1 – Social media is free
2 – Social media is real-time
3 – Social media is patient-centric.

At some level, this is sort of true. But I have to strongly disagree.

I would make the opposite claim:

1 – Social media is *not* free
2 – Social media is *not* real-time
3 – Social media is *not* patient-centric.

What do I mean?

1 – Social media is not free. Why? Nothing is free. There are opportunity costs and risks inherent in everything. And public social media is not ubiquitously accessible. There are risks concerning information integrity which should not be taken lightly.

2 – Social media is not Real-time. It's instant, yes. But real-time is completely different from instant. Instant is just that: immediate messaging. But real-time is this: the right, relevant information delivered at the right time in the right context. Building that kind of software is immensely challenging. And yet it offers us a truly powerful means of connecting people with important information. Tweets and Facebook statuses are nice for an ambient intimacy and serendipity – but they aren't what should be called real-time.

3 – Social media is not patient-centric. The Web had no Centrality, no central authority and no central perspective. By definition it isn't anything-centric. Yes, the Web is opening up ways for patients to seek information, connect, network and reach out to providers. But patient-centricity is something that requires the efforts of the entire health care process. So far, this just isn't the case with the Web.

Anyhoo, these are my off-the-cuff thoughts.

I'll be at the next SXSH and look forward meeting the wonderful people and organizers and linchpins who will lead us to new land.

Until then, I appeal to voices of reason and critical thinking on Twitter and blogs and everywhere else on the Web.

@PhiBaumann
( http://Twitter.com/PhilBaumann )

I have recently tweeted on this issue as it is becoming an increasing top of mind subject as one interest group vs. the other wrestles for 'control' or 'ownership' of the social media narrative. Can this become the 'mother of all wars' Saddam Hussein had in mind?

With the expected flow of corporate money into emerging digital vs. traditional media channels, he may not be far of the point.

As we look to 2011 what do we want to accomplish? what are we missing?

The question that's been on my mind is how to keep it going in a meaningful way. For my part, SxSH felt like a family reunion in many ways, but now the family is back to their "normal" lives and "normal" networks … whether that means #hcsm or #socialpharmer or #co_health. Where is the place for the continuation of #SxSH throughout the year?

As we chew on that one, I will reiterate my suggestion to close the session … I would love to see some very purposeful introductions made between the various parties, such as "insurers, meet pharma companies." Or "Patients, meet health systems." Or, "Doctors, meet social innovators." Perhaps those context-specific introductions could be the foundational content of SxSH as it evolves …

Yes, this could be considered shameless self-promotion: I'm a sociologist by training. And shameless name dropping: Susannah Fox and Christine Kraft will back me up on the importance and value of including social scientists at the core, not as add-ons.