Google to Offer Online Personal Health Records

hhavensteincw writes "Less than two weeks after Microsoft announced plans to offer personal health records, Google announced today that it plans to offer online personal health records to help patients tote and store their own x-rays and other health data. Google made the announcement Wednesday at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco."

Comments

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have enough of your personal data. Why don't you let us have your health records too?

Re:Translation

[Jarjarthejedi]

Unfortunately that's pretty close to the facts...Google is starting to get closer and closer to that satirical picture where someone googles "Where are my Car Keys" and Google actually knows. For some this may be a boon, but it also has negative impacts as well.

Re:Translation

[garcia]

Why don't you let us have your health records too?

The operative word here is "let". It's not like they are indexing publicly available records and placing them out there in one easy to locate spot for everyone to see. People choose to use GMail, have their conversations logged in GTalk, catalog their daily schedules and sync their work calendaring to GCalendar, and search for ways to kill their lovers in the most secretive ways on Vanilla Google.

If someone wants to offer up their personal privacy to a company, so be it. While I'm not telling you to stop your personal crusade to educate the retarded general public, I'm just telling you that it's better than what other companies are probably doing behind closed doors. I guarantee that Google, even in its infinitely undetermined future evil ways will be less so than 99% of the rest of the companies out there.

I really hope that I don't get proven wrong ;)

Re:Translation

[sonamchauhan]

:-) Imagine a Google-search enabled roomba going about it's daily business, picking up things like RFID tags on your car keys, updating your 'Google home' database. When you lose the keys, search your Google home "where are my car keys" and it pops up a map of your house illustrating the last known position.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeze, you're sure right. I Googled 'anal warts' and their first result was "Hi, Ed, who lives at 1425 Maryland Avenue. For $50, we won't tell your wife you queried about this."

Re:Translation

[russ1337]

we might even be able to track our teenagers and spouses...

You don't need to track your wife...

she's at my place.

Re:Translation

[Dekortage]

You don't need to track your wife... she's at my place.

I know. Gives me more time to spend with my girlfriends.

awesome

[thatshortkid]

targeted ads for calcium supplements next to broken bone x-rays, valtrex next to any note with keyword "itchy" or "burns", viagra/levitra with "limp". the possibilities are endless!

Ob quote!

[garcia]

I can't believe I'm about to quote this movie, I really never thought it would happen... From Roadhouse:

Doc: Do you always carry your medical record around with you?
Dalton: Saves time.

Now, if only we could have a story that I could relate the sex scene in the back room of the bar to. "But I'm on my break!"

Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't *I* keep my medical records on me, on my person with a password on me, on my person?

The way I figure it is an encrypted USB drive and public key that I give my current provider.

I would also like to fire them (and their ability to have access to my records) at whim.

Unlike Clooney, I want *MY* data to be MINE. Not in the hands of others.

Google with my records? I don't think so.

Data mining

[quokkapox]

Epidemiological data mining. Google Earth overlays, with clusters of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and E. coli infections near fast food restaurants. There might be clusters of radon-related lung cancer. There are some really nifty things you could find out by centralizing medical records. Alter or improve traffic patterns in neighborhoods where statistically more people are getting hit by cars.

I'm not advocating that we actually do all this, just pointing out some possibilities.

Re:Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption.

[NIckGorton]

Excellent idea. Though if I were you, I would also consider emailing the pertinent stuff to yourself lest your drive be lost in the car wreck when you get to the ER. I have had patients in the past who said "If you can get me online I can get you my old EKG, medications list, etc" and that has been quite useful.

I would also like to fire them (and their ability to have access to my records) at whim.

For future records, yes. If I treat you and subsequently you fire me, you have every right that I not be able to see records of your future medical care. However, any records of your care (or records you previously have had sent to me from other providers) not only should, but must (by law) be maintained by me and thus available to me.
Of course I might be willing to agree to remove your records from my office or record storage facility if: 1) it were no longer against the law, 2) there was no issue with FDA regulated drug abuse or diversion, and 3) by doing so you relinquish all rights in the future to sue me since your medical record is my entire documentation of my version of events should we have a disagreement in the future.

What data?

[NIckGorton]

The one concern that I would have about this in the hands of the consumer is data suppression. For 97% of people that is of no importance, but in a small percentage its pertinent. (I am an ER doctor, so necessarily I am a bit jaded.)

For example, I've been lied to many times by patients regarding narcotic pain medicine prescriptions. For example, I treated someone this year to whom I gave an rx for 30 vicodins. I get a letter a month later from the State Controlled Substance guys (because one physician who rx'd to this patient requested a print out of the patient's controlled substance prescription records - which triggers a letter sent to everyone who rx'd him controlled medicines in the past.) So this guy had gotten the equivalent of 30 vicodins daily over a period of a few months (from many doctors, using different pharmacies, often getting two or three rxs in one day.) This means either he is in fulminant liver failure from all the tylenol or he's selling it for fun'n'profit.

So now, if he returns to my hospital (or any of the physicians or hospitals he shopped at) any provider who has not seen him before can pull his record their and see his real history. That's the benefit of a record that is out of the hands of the patient. Now that is meaningless for the 97% of people who are above-board. However the fact that the 3% exist do mean that any patient maintained record that providers can't add to independent of the patient's wishes will be taken with at least a bit of a grain of salt in some circumstances. Your old EKG or Chest Xray is not going to be suspect, but the report that you have only filled one rx for vicodin in the past 6 years and your 'documented allergy' to every pain medicine except for vicodin might be a bit suspect.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[nyekulturniy]

I'd get you an evil meter, but it might not be calibrated, anyone has a pure 1000 kiloNazi signal to check with? The Cheyney reading is off the meter...

Gee, I wonder

[porkThreeWays]

Let's pick it apart as to why the post is a troll

There's no excuse for using Google for anything. This suggests that google is so fundamentally evil none of their products can be trusted.

Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public There's no evidence that google is in any way, shape, or form, trying to acquire information specifically on the public. This little modifier makes it seem like google's ultimate goal is to know everything about everyone, regardless of the price paid. Google's real searching goal is to collect as much publicly available information on all subjects as possible. That's a huge difference. The GP wants to make it seem somehow Google has plans to control people via privileged information.

it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are. I can't even begin to fathom what they are suggesting here. Maybe that the NSA somehow funds google and there's some covert CIA plan to use google to take over the world? I think the ultimate gist of the quote is somehow google gets secret funding from some entity that ultimately wants total control over the world. The real reason google became so successful so quickly is because their leaders and founders are really really smart (shocking, I know). Most large tech companies are large because they got into the game early and made OK products w/ a little bit of strong arming. Google actually got into the market fairly late in the game with many many obstacles to overcome. They become popular based of products that were so superior people took a step back and said "why are we still using this garbage when google X is so much better". That takes a lot for people to do.