Comments on: Google Health — A serious test drive

By: purificadoras de agua

purificadoras de agua — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 14:56:30 +0000

Very interesting details you have noted , thanks for posting .

By: JP

JP — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:56:31 +0000

try this also Take these self-test to fight illnesses that target the age of 40
visit http://over40andfighting.com/home.asp

By: Jonathan Woodward DC

Jonathan Woodward DC — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:16:45 +0000

I feel this idea is a bit a head of its time, with the highest users of healthcare probably being less net-savy (research on this??), resistance to status quo by physician offices, and cost disincentives (even if you join will your doctor use the data, if the doctor joins will patients have their data, etc). Seems with all the free storage and email available, there could even be a ‘free’ platform for this concept that would drive more interest from both ends. I understand the costs of data protection are higher, but that could be offset with directory ads (like find a cardiologist if the data reports high blood pressure).

By: Jonathan Woodward DC

Jonathan Woodward DC — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:15:54 +0000

By: Jack Powers

Jack Powers — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:47:44 +0000

I wonder if the motivated healthcare consumer is going to wait around for his providers to get linked. It seems to me there are plenty of other apps that can touch the Google PHR for reasons of wellness, fitness, commerce and sex that have their own adoption curve.
So many people buy vitamins, follow diet gurus, jog and mediate — healthcare beyond the doctor’s reach — that a Google-branded health facility sounds like a billion dollar idea, even if no doctor ever sees one.

By: Matthew Holt

Matthew Holt — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:01:26 +0000

Thanks for the comments so far
Andrew: I fixed my incompetence–thanks for pointing it out
Jordan. I saw your slow lane drive…I hope you finish it (or at least wonder through some of the peaks and valleys) and let us know aobut it
1st Goog no harm: thanks for the plaudits. Re your criticisms.
a)”grabbing data from elsewhere” I did say the list of partners was regrettably short. My wife told me about the Quest issue. As is happens I had some lab work to be done this week, so I went to a Quest lab. They told me that my HMO had no deal with them, and that the work was $400, or Labcorp downstairs would do it for free. Given that my interest in finding out the interface with Quest was less than my interest in keeping $400, I guess I’ll start lobbying Labcorp to join up. But this is of course the key problem
b)My relationship with EMD. FD, followed by an admission of guilt is I think OK. I used DoubleCheckMD because 1) It’s really really good, and 2) I was sitting in the home of the CEO writing this and when I got stuck looking for an interaction to demonstrate, she came up with one. So I’m lazy too!
c) Moving data to those partners. I didn’t find moving data to them too difficult. What I found in general was that there wasn’t much that could be done to the data you moved. However, in the case of iHealthRecord, nothing moved over — hence the error message on Page 21. Hopefully that’s clearer now
d) Adoption rates. I have no idea what Google thinks will be a success. My guess is that 1% of US Google users would be a good start.
e) Applications for sharing with and messaging doctors need to come next. If every Doctor hears, send me an email that I can put in Google/Microsoft….then I think we’ll get somewhere. it is though a chicken and egg situation I know.

By: e-Patient Dave

e-Patient Dave — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:11:40 +0000

The privacy issue is simply huge. I don’t know why the advocates don’t get it. The lay people I talk to *all* express concern about it; some flat-out say “No WAY I’m giving them my data.”
The two most common concerns I hear are that nobody wants a TJX-style hack-in to happen with their health info, and nobody wants to risk Ashcroft-Rumsfeld-Cheney jerks serving up warrantless National Security Letters etc and giving the data to other govt agencies “and other parties,” as authorized by USA Patriot.
The other day NPR had a piece about how some Iraq veterans are going private-pay because they fear what will happen if the military finds out they’re being treated for PTSD.
Then there’s the issue of Google’s corporate integrity. (See the CNet.com episode and China. All this has been discussed at some length on the e-Patients blog and elsewhere, which I cataloged briefly on my little blog.)
Now, perhaps those concerns are completely baseless, but I haven’t (yet) heard anyone say why, except “Oh, don’t worry about that.”
Granted, there are the people who say “Google knows it’s not covered by HIPAA, so it wrote its own tougher rules.” Which, of course, can’t be enforced. Who’s kidding whom?
I’d feel a lot better if all the enterprises that want to get into this great opportunity (and it is one) would work to get HIPAA updated to cover their case.
I’m all for technology and its benefits for all of us, especially patients. But I have a very strong feeling that it needs to be done open source, not by someone who will gladly import your data but won’t let you export it again. Is there any not-for-profit justification for that policy?

By: Jordan Glogau

Jordan Glogau — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:43:15 +0000

Matt:
I am taking a slower drive myself.
Here are my posts:
http://www.medicalbillingphr.com/blog/
I am also getting comments back from Google at:
http://groups.google.com/group/googlehealthdevelopers/browse_thread/thread/25452459df80c78f#
Enjoy.
Jordan

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:19:35 +0000

Good stuff. FYI…you posted to Slideshare.net — not Slideshow.com.