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.
Share your ideas
10 Total
May 27, 2008 at 11:18am
Rachel KingMost 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
Ori CohenNot 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
Gloria SinGoogle 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
john dennisObviously 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
john dennisObviously 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
john dennisAbout 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
Carel Two-EagleGiven 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
Alexis MadrigalTo 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
Darren ShieldOnline 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
Joe MurrayI 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.
Share your ideas