Google Health, the search giant's foray into the electronic medical records space, is now in public beta. (Microsoft's HealthVault launched earlier this year.) The convenience of having a central repository of your health information online certainly makes sense in our hyper-digital lives -- why ask your doc about your condition when you can just google it? What makes corporate experiments like Google Health sketchy is the potential for the company to profit from your illness. Are you diabetic? Surely you'd want to be targeted with ads for the latest glucose meters and medical trials. What about the potential for your private health data to become searchable, perhaps by future employers or even spouses? Facebookers know all too well privacy settings don't mean a thing when your profile is online. Check out Ars Technica's analysis here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080221-concerns-loom-as-google-be...
By all means, give Google Health a whirl. Just don’t expect it to be the cure all for your health or our healthcare system.
Obviously we are talking about the potential to implement a system that could have very serious security issues. For example,
1. The issuance of cookies should not be associated with any online health record (OHR) web pages.
2. OHR systems should include data encryption whenever "personal" information (e.g., SS#) is accessed.
But more importantly, we need to know the following:
1. What medical information would be on the OHR?
2. How would this medical information be entered on the OHR?
3. Who would enter this medical information?
4. Would it be simply a central store of medical information or would it be an intelligent system that would remind users to see the doctor for a normal checkup? or mammogram?
5. Would the OHR integrate information across users to allow for the possibility of preventative medical intervention.
Now the more the OHR becomes a true web 2.0 type service the more security issues will arise.
Other issues are coming to my mind as I type like "who will own this system?" I can think of pros and cons for this system to be owned by the health care provider, your doctor, or the government.
Obviously we are talking about the potential to implement a system that could have very serious security issues. For example,
1. The issuance of cookies should not be associated with any online health record (OHR) web pages.
2. OHR systems should include data encryption whenever "personal" information (e.g., SS#) is accessed.
But more importantly, we need to know the following:
1. What medical information would be on the OHR?
2. How would this medical information be entered on the OHR?
3. Who would enter this medical information?
4. Would it be simply a central store of medical information or would it be an intelligent system that would remind users to see the doctor for a normal checkup? or mammogram?
5. Would the OHR integrate information across users to allow for the possibility of preventative medical intervention.
Now the more the OHR becomes a true web 2.0 type service the more security issues will arise.
Other issues are coming to my mind as I type like "who will own this system?" I can think of pros and cons for this system to be owned by the health care provider, your doctor, or the government.
Given the number of abuses reported thus far regarding "secure" data, including identity theft and insurance companies' cleverness in not holding their end of contracts, copupled with the recent sad perspective that "anything goes if a person doesn't get caught", I think the risks of storing personal data on the Web far outweigh any convenience. I would not allow my information to be stored on the Web..
To me, it's not about storing data on the Web, it's about storing your data with companies that clearly will want to monetize it. That's a problem to me. I'd rather keep my health records siloed away from Google and Microsoft and any other web company that'd like to target ads based on it. On the other hand, how amazing would advertising-supported health care be?
Online and "secure" storage of health information could certainly expedite treatment or even save lives (maybe) just so long as only the people who NEED to see it are given access. Hospitals, especially in the emergency room could definitely benefit from knowing that this car crash victim is diabetic and that one is allergic to penicillin, all at the click of a mouse.
All you have to do is secure it. Admittedly no small task, but the potential benefits seem to be well worth the effort.
This is really a loaded question! I had a start-up company for a few years back in 1999-02 for neurological monitoring using software and PDAs. Today, mobile phone can process and store much of this information. I'm not sure why we are being asked about storing health records "online?" No doubt the most important bit of information in our lives, health records and related analysis, should not be wholely kept on line. I can see special memory stick devices embeded with records programs that we share with providors. But, I believe the real good stuff will come via disease management programs that track our own unique health issues, that can be integrated into our mobile phones today. Some would integrate on line. I mean, look how PC systems utilize info on our cars, businesses, and such. It is time, but not nesessarily for on line storage.
I like this idea only issue would be "SECURITY". As we have seen many issues of Identity thefts, credit card scams etc. I dont think moving from paper to web would solve the issue. We have to be more careful as this information can be made useful if it lands in wrong hands.
If stored on the web then this information needs to be secured with a dual key(digitally signed) and can only be accessed on authorization of personal record holder and the one who needed to get that.
Other countries and the US in pockets have this now. It has been in the form of membership groups and web- enabled, secure, encrypted, and wireless smartcards.
Imagine - encryted, easy to update, portable, readable at any reader site; pharmacy or Dr. office and when traveling.
WebMD and other consumer sites; along with proprietary insurers use this config /VPN to access and store basic medical profile info.
Health Networks use it to give patients access across a system.
As private individuals, as per HIPPA regulations we need to continue to stand up and demand that our private and knowable info is scrubbed of individually identifying detail, and not marketable or communicated beyond our specifications.
Fine Balance- As long as the information repository and access protocol is also extremely secure, beyond human hacking - we are good to go.
HMMM quite a feat.
Minimum record info, blood type, allergies, chronic medical conditions, insurance, main contact info, DNR requests etc. are helpful to have. Best used as portable and possibly "key and hand carried" so access is turned on or off by a few trusted users.
13 Total
May 27, 2008 at 11:18am by Rachel King
Most of our bills with lots of personal information are paperless and online now, thus health records shouldn't be any different.
May 27, 2008 at 1:19pm by Ori Cohen
Not sure - maybe for people with health problems?
It might target an older audience who doesn't know how to use the internet though....
May 27, 2008 at 1:51pm by Gloria Sin
Google Health, the search giant's foray into the electronic medical records space, is now in public beta. (Microsoft's HealthVault launched earlier this year.) The convenience of having a central repository of your health information online certainly makes sense in our hyper-digital lives -- why ask your doc about your condition when you can just google it? What makes corporate experiments like Google Health sketchy is the potential for the company to profit from your illness. Are you diabetic? Surely you'd want to be targeted with ads for the latest glucose meters and medical trials. What about the potential for your private health data to become searchable, perhaps by future employers or even spouses? Facebookers know all too well privacy settings don't mean a thing when your profile is online. Check out Ars Technica's analysis here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080221-concerns-loom-as-google-be...
By all means, give Google Health a whirl. Just don’t expect it to be the cure all for your health or our healthcare system.
May 27, 2008 at 4:10pm by john dennis
Obviously we are talking about the potential to implement a system that could have very serious security issues. For example,
1. The issuance of cookies should not be associated with any online health record (OHR) web pages.
2. OHR systems should include data encryption whenever "personal" information (e.g., SS#) is accessed.
But more importantly, we need to know the following:
1. What medical information would be on the OHR?
2. How would this medical information be entered on the OHR?
3. Who would enter this medical information?
4. Would it be simply a central store of medical information or would it be an intelligent system that would remind users to see the doctor for a normal checkup? or mammogram?
5. Would the OHR integrate information across users to allow for the possibility of preventative medical intervention.
Now the more the OHR becomes a true web 2.0 type service the more security issues will arise.
Other issues are coming to my mind as I type like "who will own this system?" I can think of pros and cons for this system to be owned by the health care provider, your doctor, or the government.
May 27, 2008 at 4:10pm by john dennis
Obviously we are talking about the potential to implement a system that could have very serious security issues. For example,
1. The issuance of cookies should not be associated with any online health record (OHR) web pages.
2. OHR systems should include data encryption whenever "personal" information (e.g., SS#) is accessed.
But more importantly, we need to know the following:
1. What medical information would be on the OHR?
2. How would this medical information be entered on the OHR?
3. Who would enter this medical information?
4. Would it be simply a central store of medical information or would it be an intelligent system that would remind users to see the doctor for a normal checkup? or mammogram?
5. Would the OHR integrate information across users to allow for the possibility of preventative medical intervention.
Now the more the OHR becomes a true web 2.0 type service the more security issues will arise.
Other issues are coming to my mind as I type like "who will own this system?" I can think of pros and cons for this system to be owned by the health care provider, your doctor, or the government.
May 27, 2008 at 4:12pm by john dennis
About Gloria's comments. Very good point. If these OHR systems would be supported by content driven ads that would be very, very bad.
May 27, 2008 at 4:36pm by Carel Two-Eagle
Given the number of abuses reported thus far regarding "secure" data, including identity theft and insurance companies' cleverness in not holding their end of contracts, copupled with the recent sad perspective that "anything goes if a person doesn't get caught", I think the risks of storing personal data on the Web far outweigh any convenience. I would not allow my information to be stored on the Web..
May 27, 2008 at 5:18pm by Alexis Madrigal
To me, it's not about storing data on the Web, it's about storing your data with companies that clearly will want to monetize it. That's a problem to me. I'd rather keep my health records siloed away from Google and Microsoft and any other web company that'd like to target ads based on it. On the other hand, how amazing would advertising-supported health care be?
May 27, 2008 at 7:01pm by Darren Shield
Online and "secure" storage of health information could certainly expedite treatment or even save lives (maybe) just so long as only the people who NEED to see it are given access. Hospitals, especially in the emergency room could definitely benefit from knowing that this car crash victim is diabetic and that one is allergic to penicillin, all at the click of a mouse.
All you have to do is secure it. Admittedly no small task, but the potential benefits seem to be well worth the effort.
May 27, 2008 at 7:44pm by Joe Murray
I love the idea, and tried Google health after seeing the announcement. Need this for my car maintenance too.
Too bad none of my providers were available to send me data.
But they got my height and weight, calculated my BMI and sent me fat-appropriate ads.
May 28, 2008 at 11:18pm by Stephen Dolle
This is really a loaded question! I had a start-up company for a few years back in 1999-02 for neurological monitoring using software and PDAs. Today, mobile phone can process and store much of this information. I'm not sure why we are being asked about storing health records "online?" No doubt the most important bit of information in our lives, health records and related analysis, should not be wholely kept on line. I can see special memory stick devices embeded with records programs that we share with providors. But, I believe the real good stuff will come via disease management programs that track our own unique health issues, that can be integrated into our mobile phones today. Some would integrate on line. I mean, look how PC systems utilize info on our cars, businesses, and such. It is time, but not nesessarily for on line storage.
May 29, 2008 at 11:41am by Girish Kulkarni
I like this idea only issue would be "SECURITY". As we have seen many issues of Identity thefts, credit card scams etc. I dont think moving from paper to web would solve the issue. We have to be more careful as this information can be made useful if it lands in wrong hands.
If stored on the web then this information needs to be secured with a dual key(digitally signed) and can only be accessed on authorization of personal record holder and the one who needed to get that.
May 29, 2008 at 4:40pm by Cynthia Osborn
Other countries and the US in pockets have this now. It has been in the form of membership groups and web- enabled, secure, encrypted, and wireless smartcards.
Imagine - encryted, easy to update, portable, readable at any reader site; pharmacy or Dr. office and when traveling.
WebMD and other consumer sites; along with proprietary insurers use this config /VPN to access and store basic medical profile info.
Health Networks use it to give patients access across a system.
As private individuals, as per HIPPA regulations we need to continue to stand up and demand that our private and knowable info is scrubbed of individually identifying detail, and not marketable or communicated beyond our specifications.
Fine Balance- As long as the information repository and access protocol is also extremely secure, beyond human hacking - we are good to go.
HMMM quite a feat.
Minimum record info, blood type, allergies, chronic medical conditions, insurance, main contact info, DNR requests etc. are helpful to have. Best used as portable and possibly "key and hand carried" so access is turned on or off by a few trusted users.