Quick Facts
Objective: Annual national competition designed to encourage students to apply their creative skills to the development of technological innovations with great potential to support the improved delivery of care at the frontlines of medicine.
Eligibility: Open to graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in accredited engineering programs in the United States.
Status: Entries invited for 2013 competition, with online submission site opening on December 3, 2012 and pre-proposals due by January 21, 2013.
2013 Competition Details, Key Dates, Forms and Instructions
The 5th Annual Student Technology Prize in Primary Healthcare—administered under the auspices of the Massachusetts General Hospital's "Ambulatory Practice of the Future" (APF), assisted by CIMIT, and sponsored by the Gelfand Family Charitable Trust—is a $400,000 competition for engineering student to help advance their winning clinically-relevant, primary care solutions.
Technologies of particular interest are ones that could improve access to medical care, leverage the skills of caregivers, automate routine tasks, increase workflow efficiency, support patients with chronic disease, increase compliance with care protocols, reduce medical error, or augment the physician-patient relationship.
| 2013 AWARDS | |
|---|---|
| First Prize | $150,000 |
| Second Prize | $100,000 |
| Third Prize | $50,000 |
| 10 Finalists | $10,000 each |
| 2013 TIMELINE FOR COMPETITION | |
|---|---|
| December 3, 2012 | Submission process opens |
| January 21, 2013 | Deadline for pre-proposals |
| February 15, 2013 | 10 Finalists announced and $10K distributed to each (The funds will be transferred to the student(s) home institution for appropriate dispersal.) |
| May 13, 2013 | Submission process for Invited Finalists opens |
| June 3, 2013 | Deadline for final proposals from 10 Finalists |
| July 1, 2013 | Top 3 Winners announced & major awards distributed (The funds will be transferred to the student(s) home institution for appropriate dispersal.) |
Additional Information
To read the answers to frequently asked question and the definition of primary care, see a list of previous winners and finalists and view scenario samples, click on the corresponding tab below. For further questions and assistance, email the administrators of the Student Technology Prize for Primary Healthcare at studentprize@partners.org.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQs FOR LETTER OF INTENT SUBMISSIONS (PRE-PROPOSAL)
1. What is the definition of primary care?
Primary care is “frontline medicine,” and is typically delivered by internists, pediatricians, family practitioners and nurse practitioners. It is usually found in a clinic-based setting. A multi-disciplinary team-based approach to primary care can also include physicians, nurse practitioners, nutritionists, physical therapists and other professionals, collaborating in managing patient-care issues. Note that primary care is increasingly delivered via outreach to the home, workplace, satellite clinics and/or community settings – not just in the traditional “physician’s office” setting. Increased access and convenience are sought in this evolution, and innovative technology can play a significant role in accelerating desired changes in practice patterns.
2. Are international students enrolled in accredited engineering programs outside of the United States eligible to participate?
Unfortunately, the Student Prize for Primary Healthcare is only currently available for accredited programs in the United States. Perhaps in future years we will be able to expand it to international entrants.
3. Can one university or program submit multiple applications?
There is no limit on the number of applications a university or program can submit, however, a student (or student team) can submit only one application.
4. Can a student submit more than one application?
Students or their team can only submit one application, however, there is no limit on the number of applications a university or program can submit.
5. Can a team of students apply or just individual students?
Teams of students are strongly encouraged.
6. Can a student team include students from multiple universities and/or disciplines?
Students can be drawn from multiple universities and disciplines (e.g., medical students), however, the project leader must be an engineering student enrolled in good standing at the responsible institution.
7. Can the team include industry partners?
Only students can be on the team receiving the prize and using the prize money. However advice and/or technical help from industry professionals is acceptable as long as it is consistent with the student team’s institutional policies regarding industry relations.
8. Can the team include faculty members?
Only students can be on the team receiving the prize and using the prize money. However, mentorship by faculty members is certainly acceptable.
9. Can students participate who will graduate during the competition?
The student project leader submitting an entry must be enrolled and in good standing at the responsible institution for the duration of the competition, but the variations of student status of other members of the team is not a concern.
10. What is meant by “the responsible institutional official”?
Institutional Official means an individual at your engineering school with authority to accept responsibility for the stewardship of the funds in accordance with their institutional policies.
11. What information must the institutional letter of support convey?
The Letter of Support simply needs to be on institutional letterhead for verification of authenticity, and needs to affirm three things:
a) that the entrant is a student in good standing in the school,
b) that the institution will accept the responsibilities for oversight of any matters of compliance with regulations and policies,
c) that the institution will disburse the Prize funds, as transferred from the MGH/Partners HealthCare System, for purposes related to the advancement of the project or for direct support of the student or the benefit of the student's career, and will not deduct any indirect-cost amounts, tuition charges, or other fees of any sort.
12. Who retains the rights to any intellectual property generated by a proposal?
Management of intellectual property will be determined by the institutional policies of the entity responsible for the proposal. No rights to intellectual property are retained by the entities administering the award.
13. Should I disclose any unprotected proprietary information in the letter of intent?
Protecting proprietary information is the responsibility of the applicant and the applicant institution. Any intellectual property needing protection should be protected before submission (within the applicant's own institution's processes and policies) or should not be disclosed in the letter of intent, leaving time to protect it later before any public disclosure. A variety of reviewers will be used to select the finalists. They will not be asked to commit formally to non-disclosure agreements because of the volume of material they will be asked to review. Reviewers will be asked to treat conceptual material with the normal discretion asked of peer reviewers of manuscripts or proposals.
14. Can individuals who are not graduate or undergraduate students in engineering programs apply?
Individual applicants, or team leaders in the case of applicant teams, must be graduate or undergraduate students in engineering or technology-related programs. Clinicians may be collaborators. Business-school students or medical students may be team members, but the project leader(s) must be engineering student(s).
FAQs FOR FINALISTS
1. What expenses are allowable?
Any expense that advances the project towards a more advanced and compelling final submission is allowable. For example, these include any expenses for supplies, machine-shop charges, partial stipend support for a student-member of the team, project-related travel, and the like. Expenses must be reimbursed via your institution's check-payment procedures with the assistance of your institutional official who will act as steward of the $10,000 fund the MGH/Partners HealthCare System is providing to them.
2. Should expense receipts be submitted to MGH with the full proposal?
Receipts should be saved as documentation and review according to your own institution's requirements, but need not be submitted to MGH.
3. How should proprietary information be managed?
While the submitted materials will be treated with discretion, MGH, Partners HealthCare System, the APF and CIMIT cannot provide any assurance of confidentiality in accepting them. The administrators use reviewers, for example, in judging merit of the submissions, and while they will also be expected to use discretion they are not bound by any confidential-disclosure agreements. That would be impractical and unrealistic to seek. In fact your submission should be written with the potential of winning a final Prize in mind, and therefore with the understanding that publicity will be appropriate and of value to you in advancing the cause of your project. Even projects that do not win one of the three large prizes may be suitable for wider dissemination and publicity as part of our communication to media about the worthiness of all the entries. Thus information considered proprietary by you and not yet protected by copyright or patent-application processes should not be included in the submission. Functional performance can be described without all the underlying detail of any inventions or proprietary techniques, if those are sensitive material. We will endeavor to consult with all Finalists about any communications it releases in its publicity, but given the tight time-frame between final submission and announcement of the winners, it may not be possible to arrange your review or approval of the text in our announcements. In addition to general publicity, we may see specific opportunities to help you advance your project by connecting you with companies interested in commercializing portions of your work. In that case we will broker your direct contacts with such company(s) if you so desire. As stated in the original announcement of this Prize, any intellectual property remains under ownership of your institution, if so assigned, or of the inventors. The Prize's sponsors will not assert any rights related to the funding we provide.
4. Should the final submission include a budget?
A budget is not required. However, a statement as to the value of the prize to the recipient (either to advance the project or their career) would be a positive addition.
5. Is there a particular format/layout that is preferred for the submission?
There is no specific format/layout that is preferred, except that all text must be in a readable font (at least Arial 11 point) and margins must be at least 0.7 inches. The design of the submission is at the discretion of the finalist.
6. Is there a specific order that the sections must be addressed or is it open for the applicants to provide all of the information in the most compelling way?
The sequencing and approach is at the discretion of the finalist.
7. Should the final submission be more like a scientific write-up or a business write-up to pitch the idea?
The report should provide a compelling justification for the innovation with clear advocacy of the pathway to clinical impact.
8. Can additional sections be added to those listed in the website instructions for the final proposal?
Sections may be added at the discretion of the finalist.
9. Do business financials need to be included in the application?
Business financials do not need to be included in the application. However, any thoughts on the practicality of commercialization are welcome.
10. As we are writing the final proposal, should we address the project as if we are receiving $150,000, $100,000, or $50,000? Since there is a factor of 3 difference between first and third place, certain facets of the project could be accomplished given the largest of the prize monies but not necessarily with the smallest.
Your final entry will be judged based on the work to date (of submission at the end of May), and on its promise for the future within a reasonable time frame, with realistically achievable resources. Don't think specifically about whether it can reach full impact with one particular level of prize money from this competition alone. The judges won't consider that.
11. How do I include video attachments in the final submission?
Any videos you may have of your final projects can be posted to YouTube (or any other video hosting site) and the link included in your final submission. Please opt for the "private" posting option rather than the "public" posting.

WHAT IS PRIMARY CARE?
Primary care describes the activity of a health care provider who acts as a first point of consultation for all patients. Continuity of care is also a key characteristic of primary care. Primary care involves the widest scope of health care including all ages of patients, patients of all socioeconomic and geographic origins, patients seeking to maintain optimal health, patients with acute conditions, and patients with chronic diseases. Common chronic illnesses include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, depression and back pain.
Primary care professionals seek to provide health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings including office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, senior center, and clinic.

SAMPLE PRIMARY CARE SCENARIOS
These illustrative primary care examples of patient needs and potential design opportunities are not intended to constrain the opportunity space but to stimulate thought. Applicants should feel free to work from personal experiences and those of clinical collaborators.

PAST WINNERS AND FINALISTS
2012 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists |
|
|---|---|
$150,000 |
Jason Boggess and Everett Lawson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, in collaboration with Di Wu and Siddharth Khullar |
| $100,000 Second Prize |
Mozziyar Etemadi, University of California, San Francisco, in collaboration with Kendra Johnson |
$50,000 |
Daniel DeDora, State University of New York, Stony Brook, in collaboration with Sayan Mullick Chowdhury, Nicholas Pallotta, Atulya Prasad, Aleks Klimas and Jon Yahav Project Title: “GlucoREAD Patch: A Novel Non-invasive Continuous Glucose Sensor Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and an Optical Probe” Monika Weber, Yale University, in collaboration with, Brian Goldstein, Phillip McCown, Luye Mary Mu, Kara Brower and Shivang Patel Project Title: “Alpha-Screener: Rapid Pathogen Detection and Antimicrobial Test” |
| Finalist | Omid Akhavan, Johns Hopkins University, in collaboration with Luis Soenksen |
| Finalist | Jason Boggess, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in collaboration with Everett Lawson, Di Wu and Siddharth Khullar |
| Finalist | Daniel DeDora, State University of New York, Stony Brook, in collaboration with Sayan Mullick Chowdhury, Nicholas Pallotta, Atulya Prasad, Aleks Klimas and Jon Yahav |
| Finalist | N. Gozde Durmus, Brown University, in collaboration with Kim Kummer and Erik Taylor |
| Finalist | Mozziyar Etemadi, University of California, San Francisco, in collaboration with Kendra Johnson |
| Finalist | Raymond Kozikowski, University of Florida, in collaboration with Sarah E. Smith and Jennifer A. Lee |
| Finalist | Margo Monroe, Boston University, in collaboration with Alex Reddington, Jacob Trueb, and Ahmet Tuysuzoglu |
| Finalist | Guillermo L. Monroy, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaignin collaboration with Cac Nguyen, Nathan Shemonski and Shuo Yuan |
| Finalist | Eric Salm, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, in collaboration with Gregory Damhorst, Brian Dorvel, and Carlos Duarte |
| Finalist | Monika Weber, Yale University, in collaboration with, Brian Goldstein, Phillip McCown, Luye Mary Mu, Kara Brower and Shivang Patel |
| » Read 2012 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement | |
2011 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists |
|
|---|---|
$150,000 |
George Daaboul, Boston University |
| $100,000 Second Prize |
Elliot Swart, Yale University |
| $50,000 Third Prize |
Melodie Benford, Texas A&M University “An Innovative Point-of-Care Blood Biomarker Device for Diagnosing Heart Attacks" |
| Finalist | Brian Bell Jr., Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Finalist | Pablo Bello, Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Finalist | Melodie Benford, Texas A&M University |
| Finalist | Yoonju Cho, Johns Hopkins University |
| Finalist | George Daaboul, Boston University |
| Finalist | Matt Dubach, Northeastern University |
| Finalist | Kejia Li, Kansas State University |
| Finalist | Asanterabi Malima, Northeastern University |
| Finalist | Elliot Swart, Yale University |
| Finalist | John Waldeisen, University of California, Berkeley |
| » Read 2011 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement | |
2010 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists |
|
|---|---|
$150,000 |
Mark Hartman, Cornell University |
| $100,000 Second Prize |
George Lewis, Cornell University |
| $50,000 Third Prize |
Ming-Zher Poh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology "Webcam-based Technology for Non-contact, Multi-Parameter Physiological Measurements" |
| Finalist | Peter Backeris, Stevens Institute of Technology "Digital Triage Assistant" |
| Finalist | Jonathan Baran, University of Wisconsin Madison "EMRViz: A Patient-Centered, Problem-Oriented EMR Visualization Package" |
| Finalist | Ryan Chang, Johns Hopkins University |
| Finalist | Nicholas Chen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Improving Everyday Health Through Continuous Personal Instrumentation" |
| Finalist | Mark Hartman, Cornell University ($150,000 First Prize Winner) "Rapid Multiplexed Detection of Pathogens with DNA Nanobarcodes" |
| Finalist | Syed Imaad, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Health Diagnostic Compact Disc (HDCD)" |
| Finalist | George Lewis, Cornell University ($100,000 Second Prize Winner) "Wearable Low-Intensity Ultrasound Therapy for Osteoarthritis: Technology Development and Clinical Evaluation" |
| Finalist | Debkishore Mitra, University of California Berkeley "Sepsis Diagnostics Using iMDs" |
| Finalist | Muzaffer Yalgin Ozsecen, Northeastern University "Synchronized Blood Pressure Measurement Device" |
| Finalist | Ming-Zher Poh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($50,000 Third Prize Winner) "Webcam-Based Technology for Non-Contact, Multi-Parameter Physiological Measurements" |
| » Read 2010 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement | |
2009 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists |
|
|---|---|
$150,000 |
John Moore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| $100,000 Second Prize |
Matthew Connor, Princeton University |
| $50,000 Third Prize (Two projects tied and split award) |
Richard Henrikson, University of California, Berkeley Ming Jack Po, Columbia University |
| Finalist | Brant Chee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign “Automation Extraction of Drug Regimens and Outcomes from Health Messages” |
| Finalist | Winnie Cheng, Massachusetts Institute of Technology “My Medical Elephant; Improving Medical History Reliability” |
| Finalist | Matthew Connor, Princeton University |
| Finalist | Sanna Gaspard, Carnegie Mellon University “Development of a Diagnostic Instrument for Early-Stage Pressure Ulcers (Bed Sores)” |
| Finalist | Richard Henrikson, University of California, Berkeley (Tied for $50,000 Third Prize and split award) “Versatile, rapid and inexpensive molecular detection through modular aptazyme-mediated signal transduction in a microfluidic device.” |
| Finalist | Sarah Jeffords, Texas A & M University “Digital Camera-Coupled Ophthalmoscope” |
| Finalist | Erez Lieberman, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology program “iShoe Insole” |
| Finalist | John Moore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($150,000 First Prize Winner) “Collaborative Technology for Primary Care: Teamwork Anywhere at A ny Time” |
| Finalist | Ming Jack Po, Columbia University (Tied for $50,000 Third Prize and split award) “Therapeutic Gaming for Autistic Children” |
| Finalist | Kurt Qing, Northwestern University “KMC ApneAlert” |
| » Read 2009 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalist Announcement | |

Student Technology Prize for Primary Healthcare Administrators
studentprize@partners.org
......................................................................
QUICK LINKS» Programs & Strategic Initiatives
» Site Miners
» Program Leaders
» CIMIT-Funded Projects
» CIMIT Model
» CIMIT CoLab
» CoLab Login
......................................................................
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
8.24.10
Health
Affairs (abstract): Dr. Ron Dixon on Enhancing Primary Care Through Online Communication
8.16.10
Boston Globe: Prescription for Primary Care
Q&A with Dr. Ron Dixon, Mass. General internist urges online communication between physician and patient.
7.1.10
Instant Testing for Sore Throats wins the 2010 CIMIT Primary Healthcare Prize
8.25.09
mobihealthnews: CIMIT awards diabetes iPhone app $100,000 grant
6.25.09
$150,000 Engineering Prize
awarded to CollaboRhythm Team
