Google Health Opens To the Public

Several readers noted that the limited pilot test of Google Health has ended, and Google is now offering the service to the public at large. Google Health allows patients to enter health information, such as conditions and prescriptions, find related medical information, and share information with their health care providers (at the patient's request). Information may be entered manually or imported from partnered health care providers. The service is offered free of charge, and Google won't be including advertising. The WSJ and the NYTimes provide details about Google's numerous health partners.

Comments

Privacy

[whoever57]

I for one won't be using it while their terms of service explicitly states that HIPAA doesn't apply to Google.

Re:Privacy

[TubeSteak]

How do I opt-out?

Maybe the laws need to be re-written.
I can't imagine that Federal & State Law foresaw 3rd party control of medical files.

Re:Privacy

[blondieeng]

At first glance this seems more private than what I experienced at Walgreens yesterday. After filling out my name, address, the date, and signing the paper, this pharmacy handed over my prescription drug history (on paper) without asking first to see my ID.

Re:Privacy

[Seoulstriker]

That's because... HIPAA doesn't apply to Google by nature of the law of HIPAA. You know absolutely nothing about the actual letter of HIPAA law by making a statement such as yours.

Re:Privacy

[Uncle Focker]

That's because... HIPAA doesn't apply to Google by nature of the law of HIPAA. That was... sort of the point.

Re:Privacy

[kabocox]

I for one won't be using it while their terms of service explicitly states that HIPAA doesn't apply to Google.

I don't trust Google. I'm of the opinion that companies have to obey the rules/laws of government. I'd rather "trust" the government if they said that HIPAA doesn't apply to Google rather than Google saying that HIPAA doesn't apply to them. There is a part of me that actually hopes that Google gets slapped by the government for violating HIPAA.

Re:Privacy

[morgan_greywolf]

Okay, here is the government telling you that HIPAA doesn't apply to Google. Google isn't a health care provider, nor is it a health care insurance plan, nor is it a health care clearinghouse, by the legal definitions of those terms (check the law if you like), so, no, HIPAA most certainly does not apply to Google or any other company or entity providing a similar service.

Re:Privacy

[jdray]

For those who don't want to go digging for the crunchy bits:

If you create, transmit, or display health or other information while using Google Health, you may provide only information that you own or have the right to use. When you provide your information through Google Health, you give Google a license to use and distribute it in connection with Google Health and other Google services. However, Google may only use health information you provide as permitted by the Google Health Privacy Policy, your Sharing Authorization, and applicable law. Google is not a "covered entity" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the regulations promulgated thereunder ("HIPAA"). As a result, HIPAA does not apply to the transmission of health information by Google to any third party.

Re:Privacy

[Ginnungagap]

Actually, as Moore's law is rapidly approaching it's conclusion; why don't we rather make systems for storing and sharing such information from personal, or even internalized devices?
It would be safer from exploit in your own possession, and you'd personally have to authorize access to any piece of data,
especially so if it's an item that you carry around with you.

Now this might pose a risk or a problem for less experienced users, but I can't see it not working for an entire generation grown up with information technology.

Re:Privacy

[fluffman86]

Correct, HIPAA doesn't apply to Google, but you should definitely read the differences between Google's Privacy Policy and HIPAA.

http://www.google.com/health_hipaa.html

Looks to me like Google is more private than HIPAA.

Re:Privacy

[Qzukk]

Your doctors won't be using it either, as the terms of service are pretty much incompatible with legal requirements of any real medical record. For instance, doctors are required by various states' laws to maintain their records for some number of years after you are no longer an active patient which is incompatible with the ability to "revoke" the doctor's access to your record, and looking at the developers' TOS, this revocation power is required to be supported in any product that interfaces with Google Health, so if your doctor uses a fancy computerized chart and has it automatically load up with information from Google Health, the patient is supposed to have the power to pull your information back out of there... talk about an enormous legal minefield!

From many people's perspectives, this kind of tool (in general, called a "Personal Health Record"... Google is far from the first one) is a really neat idea: you can be sure that the information about yourself is accurate and up to date by yourself, and you can share it with multiple providers (say, if you want to switch doctors, or if you have a general practitioner and a specialist or two) without having to wait (and pay) for illegible handwritten medical records to be even more illegibly faxed around and around. From every single doctors' perspective, though, once you give them medical data (whether online, on a thumb drive, or by mouth), it goes in your chart and it stays there, no takebacks allowed.

Personally, I think I'll fill mine up with all sorts of terminal illnesses, not share it with anyone, and see how long it takes before adsense sites start showing me ads for cancer treatment and pain killers.

Re:Privacy

[Seoulstriker]

Google does not provide medical services, which is why they are not bound to the provisions of HIPAA. HIPPA is a regulation of privacy and portability for providers of medical services, not for companies that act as a storage medium for your personal health information. If people use Excel to store their medical records, will Microsoft somehow be responsible for complying with HIPAA? Of course not.

Re:Privacy

[baggins2001]

Partly they are under skirting this law. Because it is just a place to store data and you can agree to store the data or have it put there.
But I agree that this is really a bad idea.
This would be equivalent to Chase bank using a third party to store financial information. They can just declare that to use web financing you have to agree to using the third party for storage of information.
There probably are laws against storing financial information in this manner, but maybe not health information.

Don't worry, in 10 or 15 years this will be common and nobody but a few people with tin foil hats will care.
But marketing wise, Linday Lohan and Britney Spears would be a great spokes people.

Re:Privacy

[Starcom8826]

I believe this would be relevant http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/05/google-health-privacy-and-hipaa.html

Re:Privacy

[scamper_22]

I'm Canadian, and I signed in to Google Health just to check it out.
I find the privacy concerns a bit off beat.

I do online banking.
I file my taxes online...

When is there such sensitivity about my health data. As far I see, it is password protected, and as long as the data is not shared with people outside my 'approved list', I have no issue with it. Google might eventually adopt HIPAA, but I seriously doubt Google will be freely sharing your private information with health insurance providers without your consent. Maybe I trust google too much.

Quite frankly, I hope google is able to do this securely. I'd love to go to my doctor, and have everything he writes about me be sent to google health. I'd love for test results to be automatically sent to my google profile. The system is in bad need of this kind of electronic health freedom. Right now the medical system is a veil of secrecy.

As long as it remains opt-in and give you control of what is stored, I think it can only be a good system. I could definitely see people wanting to hide certain diseases like HIV... from their online system. They might be afraid a friend or family member might get into their account.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google expects "covered entities" to use their software, then they are going to have to make that software HIPAA compliant.

Re:Privacy

[whoever57]

When is there such sensitivity about my health data.

Because healthcare is privately funded and managed in the USA. You don't want to be turned down for a job because of something in your health history, for example. Even in Canada, you probably don't want to be turned down for life insurance because of a history of disease in your family. You may have to disclose this information in order to get life insurance, but you probably want to be very sure that the insurance company has no more information than you really must disclose.

I'd love for test results to be automatically sent to my google profile

Kaiser Permanente has a system that makes test results (and other information) available online.

Re:Privacy

[ChristopherEddie]

In times like these, I would trust Google over the government ANY DAY! I'd rather have a creative, for-profit company actually try to make a difference than have the government dick around with tax dollars that companies like Google will end up generating anyway.

Re:Privacy

[mikehoskins]

Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent....

      AUTHORIZATION

I hereby authorize Google to share the health information contained in my Google Health profile(s) in its entirety, to only those entities and individuals I designate, for the purpose of providing me with medical care and for the purpose of sharing my information with others that I choose.

I understand and agree that this authorization permits the disclosure of health or treatment information about me, to the entities and individuals I designate, that may also contain sensitive information relating to the following:

* HIV or AIDS
* Mental illness or any mental health condition
* Alcohol or substance abuse
* Sexually transmitted diseases
* Pregnancy
* Abortion or other family planning
* Genetic tests or genetic diseases

I understand and agree that this authorization also covers any record that was created by a doctor or other health care provider other than the doctor or health care provider who supplied the record to Google Health.

This authorization will remain in effect and permit the ongoing disclosure by Google of information in the Google Health Service until I delete my profile(s) in the Google Health Service entirely or revoke the authorization. I may revoke this authorization at any time by using the features or options described in the Google Health FAQ. I understand that my revocation will not apply to actions Google has already taken in reliance on my prior authorization.

I understand and agree that in addition to the information I choose to share, Google may only share information in the limited circumstances described in the Google Health Privacy Policy.

I understand that I may request a copy of this authorization at any time.

Re:Privacy

[jotok]

HIPAA was written with the intent of safeguarding customers and their data by regulating the providers. Being the vendor who sells storage methods (e.g. Excel) does not make you liable. Being the vendor who actually maintains your records should put you under the same regulations as anyone else who handles sensitive data (but currently does not).

Re:Privacy

[Per Abrahamsen]

I seriously doubt Google will be freely sharing your private information with health insurance providers without your consent. According to their privacy policy, they won't.

Re:Privacy

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Google does not provide medical services, which is why they are not bound to the provisions of HIPAA.

While Google may not be practicing medicine, they are now inside the "health services" realm. HIPPA was suppose to protect the patient from having their medical information mishandled by those that are keeping the information. This not only includes their doctors, but also their insurance companies, and the medical record storage companies.

Re:Privacy

[heyjudeseattle]

The Google/HIPAA issue is a total red herring. HIPAA wouldn't make any of us safer in this instance...at least not by much. A violation of HIPAA, provided that's it not willful, is a $100 fine per instance...up to $25,000. Google makes $336 per second. I blogged about this here, if you're interested in more detail: Google Health: Why HIPAA Isn't The Point

Wow

[Oxy the moron]

I'm quite torn here. On the one hand, having so much information readily available in one spot is rather exciting. This is especially true if Google doesn't just cave in to "Big Pharma" and allows you to see "alternative" or "herbal" remedies for prescriptions or OTC drugs you have entered.

OTHO, Google having all that information about my medical condition in one place is somewhat disturbing... Aside from rational or irrational fears about Google having this information, aren't there HIPPA issues to be concerned about here, too?

Re:Wow

[thermian]

What bothers me is that all this is built on top of tcp/ip, and that is inherently insecure.
Given that there exists hardware to inspect packets for p2p traffic, how hard would it be to for a person of unpleasant intent to get hold of some of that and start mining 'encrypted' health information.

I can see it now, 'want to get health insurance again? Pay us x dollars or we expose condition y to your health insurance provider.'

Come to think of it, all they'd need to do is pretend they had the info, someone would be bound to be hiding a condition they could hit with random emails.

Re:Wow

[Azghoul]

Last I checked that would be extortion, or something similar.

If we don't believe in our system of laws, we might as well blow it all up and start from scratch.

Re:Wow

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

And I don't want them caving into "big infomercial" sleazeballs that tell use phrases like "Big Pharma" to try and persuade potential customers to buy their scientifically unproven snake oil instead.

Re:Wow

[MarkWatson]

I just joined, but have not entered any data - it runs using HTTPS, not HTTP

Re:Wow

[TubeSteak]

I can see it now, 'want to get health insurance again? Pay us x dollars or we expose condition y to your health insurance provider.' Many States have laws that prevent an insurer from charging sick people a higher premium.
In other words, if you are in their State, you have to follow their rules, and their rules say your price isn't affected by "condition y".

On a related note, I read an article stating that part of a McCain proposal would allow insurance companies to change their legal residency for the purpose of using another State's insurance rules. In other words, a New York insurance company can pay taxes in Arizona and use their insurance rules.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

especially true if Google doesn't just cave in to "Big Pharma" and allows you to see "alternative" or "herbal" remedies for prescriptions or OTC drugs you have entered.

Someone was bound to say something stupid like that I suppose.

There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine. There is just tested science based medicine and complete bullshit "alternative" and "herbal" remedies sold to suckers that ought to know better if they know how to use a search engine.

Alternative my arse.

Now, buried in the myriad witch doctor potions both harmless and harmful, is there a particular plant that the Mayans found cured syphilis? Probably. But until it is tested and found to work, you should not be effin around with it.

Is Big Pharma a bleedin nightmare that does all sorts of nasty corporate shit? Yes, but they also produce scientifically tested drugs that only go wrong if the testing wasn't quite right. Getting the testing right is extremely difficult and sometimes we still get bad drugs, but how giving up tested drugs in favor of random made up BS is a better idea is beyond me.

Things need to change in US health care and drug production, but replacing it with stupid hippie feel good crap isn't what is needed.

If Google wanted to list "alternative" remedies then they don't need a database, they just need to randomly select a web page and print it. Perhaps they could send people to ncreview.com where they can buy a book explaining how to ask their dead pets about it?

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

This is especially true if Google doesn't just cave in to "Big Pharma" and allows you to see "alternative" or "herbal" remedies for prescriptions or OTC drugs you have entered. Ugh, I hope Google Health doesn't become such a nexus of snake oil salesmen. Hopefully they will have minimum requirements for the scientific accuracy of medical claims to weed out this nonsense. If you want to be peddled placebos, just stick to Kevin Trudeau and his ilk's infomercials. We don't need Google Health to be infected with such a taint.

Re:Wow

[jonaskoelker]

Given that there exists hardware to inspect packets for p2p traffic, how hard would it be to for a person of unpleasant intent to get hold of some of that and start mining 'encrypted' health information. It's true that one can identify encrypted protocols by doing traffic analysis: take the mean and variance of packet size and delay in both directions, and you got 8 dimensions; look at those 8 for a set of known protocols, and find the nearest match for your unknown stream; also, the number of similar-looking connections could be used if you can watch that (say, you're the ISP or otherwise close to the sender).

However, there's a difference between saying "this is bittorrent" and "this is {wow-update.exe,ubuntu.iso,elephantsdream.avi} transmitted over bittorrent". Similarly for health records. Since we're talking about a web service, any encryption is likely to be https/SSL. Assuming different kinds of https can be distinguished, the adversary might learn that this is "health records". That's a far cry from learning "pneumonia".

So unless the crypto gets broken, assuming crypto is used and applied correctly, I wouldn't start pulling the old tin foil hat out of the closet.

What bothers me is that all this is built on top of tcp/ip, and that is inherently insecure. Unless you do a proof by semantic shift, https is "built on top of tcp/ip", and therefor inherently insecure. The same goes for ssh. Do you really think https and ssh are insecure?

Re:Wow

[kestasjk]

I had a cold, had some herbal medicine, a few days later my cold was gone. Explain that!

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

I had a cold, had some herbal medicine, a few days later my cold was gone. I had a cold, didn't take a placebo, a few days later my cold was also gone.

Explain that! Your immune system did it's job. That's what it's there for.

Re:Wow

[shentino]

In my humble opinion, Kevin Trudeau is not a snake oil salesman right now.

I have tried one of his remedies, hot peppers to boost your metabolism, and it worked. I only got fat again because I couldn't take the heat.

He has also spoken with Dr. Robert Barefoot, a good doctor who deals with calcium deficiencies and discovered a connection between acidic pH and bad health.

Case in point: Barefoot ran the pH test on patients in a hospital. It was a sickly yellow color, and he believed the test failed. As it turns out, he was in the terminal cancer ward, so his test was right on the mark.

I don't know Trudeau personally, however, I doubt that Barefoot would be associating with him if he were even half the charlatan that the Big-Pharma-Ad-Dollar-Funded media makes him out to be.

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

In my humble opinion, Kevin Trudeau is not a snake oil salesman right now. Then you clearly have no medical or scientific training.

He has also spoken with Dr. Robert Barefoot, a good doctor who deals with calcium deficiencies and discovered a connection between acidic pH and bad health. Hahahaha. People still believe this nonsense? Your body needs to have an acidic pH for you to be healthy.

Case in point: Barefoot ran the pH test on patients in a hospital. It was a sickly yellow color, and he believed the test failed. As it turns out, he was in the terminal cancer ward, so his test was right on the mark. Every human being has an acidic pH level. That's fucking normal. It's hilarious how easy people get duped by such nonsense.

I don't know Trudeau personally, however, I doubt that Barefoot would be associating with him if he were even half the charlatan that the Big-Pharma-Ad-Dollar-Funded media makes him out to be. Except for the fact that Barefoot is an even bigger charlatan and as such has no qualms about working with Trudeau.

Re:Wow

[Janos421]

Many States have laws that prevent an insurer from charging sick people a higher premium. In other words, if you are in their State, you have to follow their rules, and their rules say your price isn't affected by "condition y". It won't be that obvious. We can imagine that the insurer asks to Google "Display my Ad words with a special offer ( e.g :a reduction of 20% on the price) only to users which are not affected by conditions x-y-z".

And the insurance can raise the official price so affected users will pay a premium. The effect is the same, but they respect the law.

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

BTW I suggest all the other worshipers of the charlatan known as Bob Barefoot to read this great article: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,433084,00.html

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

Oops I guess I was wrong on the pH thing. The body apparently keeps us at a 7.4 level. But in response to Bob's claim, which is still nonsense, I direct you to Quackwatch talking about Bob's claims about testing people and the relevance of calcium to one's body pH:

Testing the pH level of the saliva is the most reliable test of calcium deficiency and can also tell the state of a person's health. Testing saliva has no practical value in evaluating general health. The level is usually similar to blood pH, which the body keeps within a narrow range. When the saliva flow is high, the pH is usually about 7.4 (7 is neutral, low numbers are acid, and higher numbers are alkaline). Calcium intake does not affect the pH of saliva. The most common cause of low (acid) salivary pH is the presence in the mouth of bacteria that cause cavities. In diseases (such as diabetic acidosis) in which blood pH is dangerously low, the level is determined by blood pH testing and calcium pills have no relevance to treatment. Bolded part is the part written by the author. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral.html

Re:Wow

[icebrain]

Laws to prevent insurers from charging sick people extra are potentially dangerous, but even if not--they should be federal, not state-by-state. Can you explain? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to see your reasoning.

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

And to quote even more since I forgot to put this in:

"Over 200 degenerative diseases are caused by calcium deficiency. That includes cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, you name it." These diseases are caused by acidosis--acidification of the body--lack of minerals, especially calcium. When you start taking coral calcium, your body alkalizes and drives out the acid [5 ]. All of these statements are incorrect. Calcium deficiency can weaken bones (osteoporosis), but it does not make the body more acidic or cause a wide range of diseases. The idea that calcium supplements (or dietary strategies) can change the acidity of the body is nonsense. The only acid level that diet or supplements can modify is the degree of acidity (pH) of the urine [6]. Emphasis added to the last line by me. BTW enjoy paying a dollar a pill for 5 cents worth of calcium carbonate. I'm know Bob's bank account thanks you.

Re:Wow

[Urza9814]

Bah. For anything drug-related, you'll find hundreds of big-pharma studies saying their pills are the only thing that'll cure you, and hundreds of other studies saying their pills will do nothing but kill ya. Personally, I love big pharma...but only for recreational purposes. When I actually wanna get better, I do it the good 'ol fashioned way - rest, tea, herbs, and a bit of amateur meditation. Of course, natural cures doesn't always mean weird plant roots pills and such (Though Valerian Root is amazing stuff)...One of the best treatments for the cold is honey. Been known and used for thousands of years. Tea too. How long has Tylenol been around? Personally, I'd trust the ones with the long and proven track record. Especially when you look at some of the things Big Pharma has given us...like Ambien, the most commonly prescribed sleep aid...which also happens to get people thrown in jail for things they do while sleepwalking (things such as driving their car into a tree and assaulting a police office). And it's no wonder why - it's a hallucinogen! But hey, what do I know, I'm just some random guy on slashdot.

Re:Wow

[smudge]

Insurance companies can deny someone insurance for a "pre-existing" condition. So once you are diagnosed with cancer/heart disease/HIV/etc you can't switch companies. A friend of mine got turned down because she was pregnant at the time she was looking for health insurance. (yes, she should have looked before ...)

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

I never said that the pharmaceutical companies where the saints of the earth and they clearly aren't. But the difference between them and the Kevin Trudeaus of the world is they actually have to prove the effectiveness and safety of their drugs. On the other hand, the "herbalists" and "naturalists" get to sell millions of overpriced placebos in an unregulated market and rake in billions annually. If you want to line their pockets ever more, have fun with that. I'll stick to things that have a scientific foundation to them.

Re:Wow

[FishWithAHammer]

Can you explain? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to see your reasoning. People who are sick will cost an insurer more. Thus, it is unreasonable for an insurer to close his eyes and go "dah dah dah, I don't know about it!".

That's for new insurance policies, of course; if you get sick and the insurer wants to raise rates, fuck 'im in the ear.

Re:Wow

[FishWithAHammer]

Er. Forgot to address the other part. With regards to state-or-federal--I'm just growing sick and tired of all the different laws between the states--standardize!

Re:Wow

[Silkejr]

There's numerous good clinical studies on substances like Echinacea that show that it boosts immune response to things like upper respiratory infections and other symptoms of a cold. Not that there haven't been bad studies done too, but to just discount the possible effects of natural products simply on the basis that they're not made by a pharmaceutical company is absurd.

Re:Wow

[Urza9814]

Well, personally I fully agree with your assessment of Kevin Trudeau. That guy's an idiot. But Big Pharma's just as bad. Yes, they have the money to run tests and trials and see what happens - but that doesn't mean they actually give a damn about what their drugs do, as I think is pretty clear from all the problems caused by Ambien (just picking on that one because I know it fairly well...I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.)

Most of the herbal remedies are based on things that have been used for thousands of years. And I find they're generally cheaper - even if you go for the expensive vegetarian gel-caps, valerian is still cheaper than Unisom. But there are very few herbals that I actually buy from any sort of drug company. I don't really trust any of them, and I only buy there when I have no other easy option. Generally I either buy in bulk online or as food products from any grocery store (tea, honey, etc)

You do have to figure out what works for you. There's some experimentation involved. But even if it is just a placebo effect (which I know most of what I use isn't), it still works. If it doesn't...then just don't buy it again. Oh, and there's also some natural cures that can be done without buying anything. Things like meditation and brainwave entrainment. While personally I've had very limited success with them for anything other than a sleep aid (much better than Diphenhydramine or any of the prescription ones), they seem to work wonders for some people...and as I said, you gotta find what works for you.

Re:Wow

[Niten]

What bothers me is that all this is built on top of tcp/ip, and that is inherently insecure. Given that there exists hardware to inspect packets for p2p traffic, how hard would it be to for a person of unpleasant intent to get hold of some of that and start mining 'encrypted' health information.

You might want to do some reading on TCP/IP and on SSL/TLS encryption. P2P deep packet inspection techniques do not magically override TLS data privacy where it's used, and you can be sure that Google will be using it for this.

That's not to say I approve of Google Health in the least, but the reasons you stated above are complete nonsense.

Re:Wow

[ErichTheRed]

But isn't that what insurance is all about? If you insure 1000 people who never use your plan other than their yearly checkups, and 10 people who have heart transplants, cancer and other wacky chronic illnesses, then you use the premiums of the healthy people (plus wise investing on your part) to pay for the care of the heavy users. In addition, you build in enough in everybody's premium to make your profit.

Things like auto insurance use a modified version of this model. If you've had three DWIs in the past 5 years, you bet you'll pay much more than a safe driver. Even so, the court settlements from any one claim can cost an insurance company many millions of dollars. In this case, it makes sense to charge people with verifiably bad driving habits more. But, even safe drivers can have a tree fall on their car. Or that DWI guy can drive the wrong way on a road and cause a 50-car accident with 10 fatalities. Randomness is a factor, otherwise insurance plans would be nothing more than discount cards for the body shop.

In your model, insurance companies could set whatever price they want for something that's basic to survival in the modern world. Driving isn't a basic right, but being healthy is prety damn important! The problem comes when the insurance company tries to wiggle out of this model and just take everyone's money across the board.

Re:Wow

[Uncle Focker]

There's numerous good clinical studies on substances like Echinacea that show that it boosts immune response to things like upper respiratory infections and other symptoms of a cold. Sure they might help to a degree, but in the end in cases such as the cold your immune system is carrying the load which was the point of my statement. This "herb" the person took didn't kill the cold virus load, their immune system did.

but to just discount the possible effects of natural products simply on the basis that they're not made by a pharmaceutical company is absurd. Because that's what I clearly said. Oh wait... Why is it that whenever you point out the crockery of people like Bob Barefoot and Kevin Trudeau that you get lumped in as if you love everything the pharmaceutical companies do? The pharmaceutical companies are some of the slimiest fucks around but at least they have scientific research on their side. If these people want some credibility than maybe they should get some actual research to validate their claims rather than bleating on about how double blind studies are prejudiced against their placebo cures.

Re:Wow

[Animaether]

"if you get sick and the insurer wants to raise rates, fuck 'im in the ear."
And how, exactly, would one do that? Presuming you're not talking about finding out the CEO's address, clubbing him over the head so that he'll hold still, then unzip and literally try to shove.. well, you know where that's going.

If they offer you the option of "either pay more, or leave", and "leave" means the option of having to get a -new- policy with another company (which you already say you shouldn't be able to get - except maybe at the high premium to begin with), then the only option left would supposedly be "pay more".

Are there laws/regulations in place that say insurance companies -can't- do this?

Are there laws/regulations in place that say that if you -change- insurance companies (when 'forced', such as in the above case), they must provide the same basic coverage for the same premium?

Is there, basically, any -actual- resolution to something like that happening that is actually reasonable and doable?

Just curious, really... personally I think healthcare and health insurance is f'ed up left-and-right (pretty much anywhere on the planet in one way or another), but the above is somewhat additionally troubling.

Re:Wow

[jaredforshey]

I was about to say "Geez, can't take a joke?" but then I noticed you're sitting at +5 Insightful, so you must not be alone.

Re:Wow

[nostriluu]

I had a headache, took some herbal medicine (aspirin), a few minutes later my headache was gone.

Explain that!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

*Whoooossshhhhhhh*

Re:Wow

[RealityThreek]

What bothers me is that all this is built on top of tcp/ip, and that is inherently insecure.

Tcp/ip isn't inherently insecure, it's not inherently anything except a transport protocol. The protocol you mean is https, which is the primary protocol you use to make anything secure when submitting data from a client to a webserver.

Given that there exists hardware to inspect packets for p2p traffic, how hard would it be to for a person of unpleasant intent to get hold of some of that and start mining 'encrypted' health information.

They can't inspect encrypted p2p traffic. Many p2p apps now allow you to encrypt your traffic which prevents the isp from determining the content. Although they can generally still figure out that it is p2p due to the nature of the traffic (but again, not the content).

All the ISP could determine is that someone was communicating to an https server at health.google.com.

Re:Wow

[kwerle]

I had a cold, had some herbal medicine, a few days later my cold was gone. Explain that! Man. I have mod points. If only there was
+1 Sarcastic

'Cause it's not quite funny, and it is certainly flamebait (for the challenged).

Slashdot sucks.

Re:Wow

[Koiu Lpoi]

Your sense of humor called, it's enjoying palm beach with the kids.

Re:Wow

[nobodyman]

Seeing as how you failed to get the parent post's joke, I'm starting to wonder if you were also oblivious to the interpretations of the name "Uncle Focker".

Re:Wow

[urcreepyneighbor]

This is especially true if Google doesn't just cave in to "Big Pharma" and allows you to see "alternative" or "herbal" remedies for prescriptions or OTC drugs you have entered. Big Pharma as opposed to... alternative, herbal remedies? Give me a fucking break. The "alternaaative" and "herbaaal" industries generate billions each friggin' year.

I don't know about you, but if I'm dying of cancer one day - likely, since I'm a damn chainsmoker - I want my meds to come from people that spent years studying and have letters before or after their names, not some hairy-legged, lesbian shebeast that reeks of patchouli oil... waving a damn dead bush around and chanting about my chakras being "out of alignment".

Re:Wow

[lostlo]

While an insurer may not be able to charge a higher premium because of your past health history, they can and do flat-out deny coverage. It is impossible for me to buy private health insurance at any cost, though I am in good health and never make non-routine doctor visits. Fortunately, I am persuasive enough that our company now offers benefits. Otherwise, I'd be uninsured once again - and the last time I was uninsured, I got sick and had to declare bankruptcy. Awesome.

Re:Wow

[Torvaun]

Just because I believe in our system of laws doesn't mean I don't lock my door.

Re:Wow

[FishWithAHammer]

If you're a higher risk, you have to provide a higher reward to the company in order to be accepted. Your higher risk is only offset to a degree by their lower risk, and if they know up-front that you're a higher risk there's no reason not to take that into account ahead of time.

Re:Wow

[icebrain]

It doesn't help that your insurance comes with your employer, instead of being independently selected or maintained.

Re:Wow

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

wow, His sense of humor sucks so bad, even on vacation it isn't doing anything funny. It should be installing banana peels in creme pie factories, or installing fake dog crap at a germaphobe conference.

Re:Wow

[Silkejr]

What's with your obsession with these people I've never heard of? You think I'm defending them? Isn't that a little paranoid of you? Maybe you should go take some sort of pharmaceutical medication for that, lol. And as far as actual research, what did I say in my first sentence? Oh right, clinical studies. But you just want a place to rant about things and not actually have a discussion about anything, isn't that right? I don't give two shits about kevin whatever, I just want to underscore the point that certain herbs used in certain ways can be plenty powerful on the body, and the way you were talking was as if the only thing that will help sick people is the shit that big pharma is peddling.

Re:Wow

[Julie188]

So Google now stores your medical records -- the only reason Google did this was because it was the one online service that Microsoft managed to get out the door first -- Microsoft's HealthVault launched in October. (Of course, Microsoft copied WebMD and Revolution Health on the idea). So if Microsoft copies everything that Google does and Google copies whatever Microsoft does, do we wind up with two identical evil empires?

Uh oh...

[getto man d]

I can see "Need Liver or Kidneys?" coming about in the recommended searches.

Re:Uh oh...

[Pyrrus]

I'm concerned about what happens when they combine information about who has healthy kidneys with streetview. And put google ads offering discounts on bathtubs and ice.

Re:Uh oh...

[moderatorrater]

I don't think it's legal for Google to advertise for human body parts. I can see a lot of travel firms advertising for trips to Mexico on this site, however.

Re:Uh oh...

[Jerajdai]

And I'm sure those "recommended searches" will redirect to ebay.

Umm

[MooseMuffin]

Should I be afraid yet?

Re:Umm

[pha7boy]

not afraid... just worried. and wary.

Oh?

[Joseph1337]

Sure put you confidential health data to a company that will give them away for on a simple whim of any goverment, probarly without you knowing about it. Great

I don't feel good, time for Google!

[hyperz69]

Let's enter, Chest Pain, Left Arm Numb, Smells of Toast! Ohhh I can earn 950 a day working at home... Let's click that... hey I won a free Ipod... today is my luc. *beeeeeeeeeeeeep*

So

[sexconker]

Still blindly trust Google?

This is actually Google's spam fighting measure

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

All people needing viagra will be notified of cheap imported viagra by Google, and the spammers will lose all their market!

Just wait till you hear about the plan they have to go after the Nigerian 409 scammers.

April Fools, right

[hey]

This reads like a joke.

Google Organ Search

[JeremyGNJ]

I'm getting ready to start googling for an organ doner when my liver finally gives up on me.

Re:Google Organ Search

[ThomsonsPier]

Doners are usually made of organs; just walk by any kebab outlet and they should be able to help out.

Disclaimer Needed

[xpuppykickerx]

Hopefully people will be smart enough to go visit a real doctor, rather than listen to the internet about all their life's little concerns. Sometimes symptoms may be generic to multiple conditions and self diagnosis can do more harm than help. Maybe this will set Darwinism to work at it's full potential.

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[Kimos]

In my Canadian province we have a government funded public health nurse phone line line. It exists for people to phone in and speak to a nurse about whatever health problem they're having, and the nurse can give advice on over the counter medication or home treatments, but will always differ to "go see a doctor" as needed. They keep a record of your calls so you can follow up on advice given and changes in your condition. It's really a very good service.

It exists to alleviate line ups in walk-in clinics and emergency rooms by keeping some of the people with less serious problems from having to go down and see a doctor. This service looks like it will serve a similar purpose.

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[SCHecklerX]

on the other hand, many times doctors aren't very good at seeing the problem either. After all, they can't feel your pain, they can only take your description. Resources that allow you to educate yourself a bit so that you have a proper background and know better *what* to tell and ask your doctor are helpful. At least they always have been for me. I'd much rather go to massage therapy to deal with this nerve problem I'm having than have surgery or a cortisone injection (yes, the ortho doctor, despite not seeing much more than a little irritation in an MRI suggested both of these! No way!)

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[digitrev]

Which province are you in?

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[icegreentea]

Ontario has it. Other provinces might have it too, but I know Ontario does.

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[jbailey999]

Québec had it when I lived there last year. I think BC might have it too.

So 80% of the population. =)

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[Inda]

We have the exact same service in the UK. It's been a lifesaver for me and the family.

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[VJ42]

We have the same thing here in the UK, it's called NHS Direct Their website has a bunch of useful info on it as well.

Re:Disclaimer Needed

[Kimos]

Manitoba. Haven't been able to find the link though.

google information horde

[pha7boy]

so, google will have your surfing profile, your financial information, tons of images of you, your house, your friends, your networks, and how will add to it your health information. You know, Big Brother can be a government, but it can also be a corporation. Even one that claims not to do any evil.

Re:google information horde

[maxume]

I don't do anything over email that I care about Google knowing about. Especially relative to whatever other email provider.

That said, they can have my health information when my health care provider gives it to them without my permission.

Re:google information horde

[Azghoul]

Please to define how Google can possibly "be" Big Brother.

Unless you're paranoid.

I'm an anarcho and I find the average posting in this thread nuts. :)

Re:google information horde

[alen]

the government uses ChoicePoint for it's information needs to bypass laws that prohibit it from gathering data on citizens. Google health can end up selling health data to anyone who asks for any reason

Re:google information horde

[pha7boy]

Please to define how Google can possibly "be" Big Brother. Unless you're paranoid. you don't need to be paranoid. You just have to value your privacy. Google is a service provider. Its service is information. They make money by providing the right information for a price.

Now imagine what happens when you add medical records to that picture... And maybe in a few years, we'll add genetic information. And a few years after that we make it all easily cross-linkled.

for a price, your private life can be accessed by people who want to sell you something, or who want to convince you of something, or whatever. For the right price, your privacy can be ripped to shreds.

The biggest problem is that the service is inconspicuous. That you're not realizing the level of the invasion of privacy as you're feeding information to the system very slowly, over time, without realizing the persistent nature of that information on the google servers. In ten years, google will have hard data on when you get depressed, what kind of drugs you take, what medical procedures you had, what illnesses you suffered.

You don;t think that's a problem? Just take your medical history for the past year, add it all up, and see how willing you are to share that with a complete stranger who's not obliged to protect that information for you.

Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[Animats]

Yes, Google Health supports advertising. Spamming, even. Read the developer guidelines. Google just doesn't run the ads themselves. That's outsourced to "affiliates".

There are some rules for affiliates, like "one spam per week per user" and "no popups or popunders". Other than that, consumers are fair game. In particular, affiliates are not prohibited from using Google health data to target ads, as long as they "disclose" that somewhere in their "privacy policy". The policy says "Only use Google Health user data for the purposes disclosed in your privacy policy, and obtain users' opt-in consent if personally identifiable health data will be used for ad targeting." So a bit of fine print, and the affiliate 0wns your health history.

It's a typical slimeball tactic - pretend to be the good guy, encourage "affiliates" to do the bad stuff.

Re:Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[d3l33t]

Slimeball or bad business practice? I think the name of the game is profits, how otherwise do you suggest they do that?

Re:Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[dmr001]

Oy vey, you folks need to take a step back. The above guidelines refer to other service providers that users can opt in to and share their history with. Google is simply limiting their ability to annoy you, should you choose to opt in.

And, Google isn't protecting your information via HIPAA because it can't - it's not a "covered entity" under the definition outlined in the law. (That is, they aren't a health provider, billing clearinghouse, or health plan.) Instead, they provide the Google Health Privacy Policy, which seems pretty reasonable. Like HIPAA, it allows them to disclose information when it seems like the government (US, in this case, as that's where the service is limited to) compels it. Before you get hot and bothered, HIPAA allows this too - it's how we tell get to CPS about abused children, for example.

I'm not new here, but I'm used to Slashdot readers being somewhat more informed before having a fit. As a covered entity myself (I'm a physician), I look forward to the day when the patients who come in saying they doubled the pink pills but lost the yellow ones they took for that surgery to remove that thigamajig have a hope of a secure information repository to clarify their history, and potentially save their bacon.

Re:Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[Uncle Focker]

but I'm used to Slashdot readers being somewhat more informed before having a fit. Since when did this ever happen? I think you're making stuff up.

Re:Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[InlawBiker]

I'm still trying to figure out their angle on this. I don't know enough about the health care industry to say yet. What I DO know is what Google says in their FAQ:

1. Why is Google offering this product?
A: It's what we do...

6. If it's free, how does Google make money off Google Health?
...There are no ads in Google Health. Our primary focus is providing a good user experience and meeting our users' needs.

So they're just being nice guys I guess.

What I also found is... Health Care is a $2 Trillion industry, and that the industry spends $30 billion per year on marketing.

If Google cannot be up front about their motives, how can I trust them to be discrete with my medical records?

I think this is a lousy idea and I doubt it'll work. But the upside potential is so huge it's becoming easy to see why they made the investment.

Re:Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[EMeta]

Google's stated purpose is to "catalog the world's information." Health statistics are a lot of data that is possibly in the least searchable format imaginable: legally sealed handwritten charts. By in large, doctors have no access to population-scale data, and have to spend amazing amounts of money to find information on that scale. This is extremely valuable, and some people's privacy is less important to them then a cure for a seemingly random series of symptoms.

Re:Yes, it has advertising, through "affiliates".

[TheGratefulNet]

sorry, but I can't trust a poster who starts out with 'oy vey' and ends with '...bacon'.

pick one and be consistent.

Re:Our health is google's wealth

[Azghoul]

I didn't realize it was mandatory for US citizens to use this service.

Good to know.

Also good to know that companies will be using our health history against us. Because they all care about us, individually.

missing drug side effects

[jonpublic]

I am dealing with a rare side effect from a fluoroquinolone, (think cipro, levaquin) called peripheral neuropathy. I plugged the antibiotic into google health and the side effect was not listed on the package insert. While its good to have drug interactions listed, lots of people have side effects from drugs and they need to be explicitly spelled out, not hiding in a sub menu.

I know for a fact that there is explicit warnings on the packages about this particular reaction and I'm livid it isn't warning about it on the package insert in google. Especially since it can be permanent.

I've racked up a couple thousand dollars in medical bills already from this side effect, and it was a pain to get doctors to admit it happened until I went to a major university hospital. At that hospital they diagnosed me right away and basically said I'd have to wait it out.

If you are curious, basically I couldn't walk for over a week, terrible joint pain for months along with numbness in my hands, face, and body. Its a known side effect with this class. Rare, but known.

Exactly

[dreamchaser]

You don't opt out. You have to sign up and opt in for them to get your records.

I agree 100% with GP. I even wrote Google to that effect. Not that I expect them to do anything with my feedback other than send it to the bitbucket.

This is a horrible, horrible precedent to set, allowing a 3rd party to have access to people's medical records without any protection under the law.

HIPPA *does* need to be updated, immediately, to cover online databases.

Re:Exactly

[TubeSteak]

You don't opt out. You have to sign up and opt in for them to get your records. Where does their privacy policy say anything about that?
If your medical provider decides to send your records to Google, AFAIK, there is jack squat you can do.

The only place "opt-in" gets mentioned is on their page for "Third-Party Developer Policies".

Re:Exactly

[dreamchaser]

Only online access provided by medical providers that are explicitly covered under the Act. This new generation of info-providers such as Google, MS, etc. are NOT covered by HIPPA. Even the Government has said so (link is posted elsewhere in this discussion by someone).

Re:Exactly

[Evanisincontrol]

Only online access provided by medical providers that are explicitly covered under the Act. This new generation of info-providers such as Google, MS, etc. are NOT covered by HIPPA. Even the Government has said so (link is posted elsewhere in this discussion by someone). That is the third time in a row you've referred to the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) as "HIPPA", even after being corrected by someone else. Is there some reason you keep doing this?

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

True BUT - any HIPAA CE (Covered Entity, which includes most of your health care providers who also use or maintain electronic patient data) MUST include terms in a contractual relationship with a BA (Business Associate - anyone the CE does business with involving patient data) which mirror HIPAA requirements (this is the "Business Associate Rule").

YOU can release your records to Google, this would involve NO HIPAA issues.

If your Primary Care Provider is a CE (likely) and they contract with Google (as a health partner etc.) then the terms of that contract MUST include HIPAA protections (i.e. the CE must require, contractually, that the BA meet the same HIPAA requirements which the CE is subject to).

Cheers,

Re:Exactly

[dreamchaser]

You're right! It's probably because I'm drunk as a skunk, travelling on business. The essence of what I said holds true still though, but thank you for the correction.

Re:Exactly

[mazarin5]

I'm not so sure that HIPPA needs an update. I wouldn't want my doctor entrusting my information to some random third party, but if they do, and that party is covered by HIPPA, then OK. However, if that party, such as google, isn't covered, then they can't.

When it comes to myself submitting information to a third party, it should be on me to make sure that party is trusted. If I gave all my medical information to my crazy neighbor, I really shouldn't expect them to be held to the same standard as a trusted professional.

Google won't be including advertising

[ionix5891]

yet?

"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[kiscica]

6. If it's free, how does Google make money off Google Health?
Much like other Google products we offer, Google Health is free to anyone who uses it. There are no ads in Google Health. Our primary focus is providing a good user experience and meeting our users' needs.

I've heard enough. I don't know what their long-term plan for monetizing Google Health is, and I don't really care now. I don't trust Google enough to consider even for a second entrusting my health care information to them (and I say this as someone who has thought very highly of the company since the beginning). And their weasly answer to the obvious question above, I think, justifies my mistrust.

Every for-profit company's primary focus is - making a profit. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with this, and the ideal situation arises when "providing a good user experience and meeting [...] users' needs" is aligned with the profit motive.

So why they can't be honest about their motivations in undertaking an expensive, large-scale project like this -- whatever those motivations are -- instead of trying to make us believe that they're doing it "out of the goodness of their hearts?" All their mealy-mouthedness accomplishes is to raise the suspicion that they've got something nasty up their sleeves. And that ensures that many users, including me, will never entrust their most private of private data to Google.

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[JeremyGNJ]

Totally agree with this. The public is getting wise to the fact that all these hippie-dippie-mushy-love "free" stuff that companies provide on the internet.....all have the motivation of money behind them. Even a company like Google, who won people over with the notion of nobility is now passed that point.

it's incredibly insulting that they would give an answer like that.

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[SCHecklerX]

And you trust your health insurance companies? Their sole purpose is to make profit. We'd be much much better off without them, paying doctors and hospitals directly.

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[Temposs]

And you trust your health insurance companies? Their sole purpose is to make profit. We'd be much much better off without them, paying doctors and hospitals directly. True, however, for what it's worth, at least insurance companies are regulated to some extent by the government, while as has been mentioned, Google is not held under the same restrictions that insurance companies are.

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[cpeterso]

Presumably Google won't charge its users/patients, but will charge the health care providers for data access.

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[retzkek]

Take a step back, you're missing the forest for the trees. Google is not some one-dimensional startup, they have a large number of products, none of which exist in isolation.

If you log into Google Health, you'll see a large search bar at the top of the page. Enter a term in there, and you get Google web search, which does have ads.

It is not necessary for a product to make a profit by itself if it drives more visitors to the other products and increases revenues there. If Google sees an increase of revenue in other areas that exceeds the cost of running Google Health, then they have fulfilled their profit motive while fulfilling users' needs without violating users' trust.

This is not a zero-sum game, we can all win.

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[urcreepyneighbor]

We'd be much much better off without them, paying doctors and hospitals directly. Depends on the "we", my friend. Out of your own pocket? Or out of my pocket?

Re:"How does Google make money off Google Health?"

[bnenning]

We'd be much much better off without them, paying doctors and hospitals directly.

Right. In every other sector of the economy, we understand that insurance is meant to cover major losses, not routine services and minor expenses. Auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes; if it did they'd probably cost $100. Yet when it comes to health care we've developed the idea that nobody should ever pay for anything. Not only do we not pay doctors directly, in most cases we don't even pay for the insurance directly, instead getting it for "free" through employers. That destroys any semblance of pricing signals and removes any incentives to control cost. (Not to mention doubly screwing people who lose their jobs).

Google Sex Life

[LM741N]

Thats the service I want to see offered. With the posting of photos and movie clips allowed. They can build a virtual community of porno providers and consumers. Wait- thats YouTube.

Re:Google Sex Life

[bsDaemon]

No, that's Xtube.com

Re:Google Sex Life

[ibjhb]

http://www.google.com/romance/

Privacy...sure

[hyades1]

After the way Google ratted out that guy who drew an unflattering picture of some Hindu saint and he got beaten and forced to eat out of the same bowl he'd used as a toilet, I think I'll pass on Google Health.

Having them turn any information I was stupid enough to give them over to an insurance company, cop, nosy government official or random thug on the street wouldn't be all that good for my health.

Let's see an iron-clad, carved-in-stone, sue-for-millions commitment from them and maybe we can talk. Otherwise, I'd just be begging to get myself hurt when they rolled over on me because some slimy insurance company whined that they didn't have enough access to my personal life.

And the big deal is.. what?

[josquint]

so the first paragraph of the EULA:

I hereby authorize Google to share the health information contained in my Google Health profile(s) in its entirety, to only those entities and individuals I designate, for the purpose of providing me with medical care and for the purpose of sharing my information with others that I choose.

Re:And the big deal is.. what?

[AtariDatacenter]

When you provide your information through Google Health, you give Google a license to use and distribute it in connection with Google Health and other Google services.

You misunderstand HIPPA

[dreamchaser]

Your medical provider is covered by HIPPA and CANNOT release your records to a third party without your consent. When you go to a new doctor they generally make you sign something saying they can share it with your insurance company, who also cannot share it with Google without your consent.

The way Google Health works is you give them your data and they store it.

Re:You misunderstand HIPPA

[BooRolla]

The way Google Health works is you give them your data and they store it.

I think that is where the question begins. What happens once Google has that data? They are neither a provider or insurer...

Re:You misunderstand HIPPA

[wealthychef]

What happens? Anything google wants. From the agreement: " When you provide your information through Google Health, you give Google a license to use and distribute it in connection with Google Health and other Google services. "
And other Google services? Huh? In other words, Google does what it wants with your data.

Where are the Google employees?

[AtariDatacenter]

I'm waiting for someone to start defending with these gems:

"Your confidential information is and always will be secure and treated with respect."
"The benefits of big databases are worth the risks."
"Trust us."

Weasel words...

[AtariDatacenter]

These documents and subdocuments are so full of weasel words, Google could practically do anything they want. Example:

However, Google may only use health information you provide as permitted by the Google Health Privacy Policy, your Sharing Authorization, and applicable law.

"YOU did not provide this information. Your doctor's office provided the information, so it is exempt from these policies."

See? It took me just a quick glance to find a huge conditional that is subject to interpretation. Don't think that companies wouldn't make that argument. And Google does not have an "evil policy", so we don't have a "promise" that they'll not interpret things in a manner we didn't expect.

And that was just one example.

Private information

[cyberzephyr]

Hey,

Why don't we all just give them blood samples and fingerprints too? It will make it easier for all us sheep follow the herd!

Look, i use Google and i like a lot of their stuff but enough is enough.

Compatible with traditional insurance?

[ErichTheRed]

Having your records online and available anywhere is great, but also requires that you trust the third party hosting them. This is one of the hurdles that hosted software companies have to overcome to get companies to sign up. In the case of something like Salesforce.com, you give up control of your CRM data, pay them a fee and hope that they don't get hacked or decide to start selling your data under the table.

This issue gets thorny when you deal with personal data like medical records. Insurance companies would love to get their hands on something like this, even on an unoffical basis. For most people covered by group health plans at work, insurers have to take the risk and insure everybody who applies from that group. Individual life and health insurance is a whole different matter. In many states, your insurer is allowed to charge more to insure sicker people. In the case of life insurance, certain conditions make it nearly impossible to buy insurance.

On the flip side, having a comprehensive electronic medical record would lower the cost of care significantly by eliminating all the paper shuffling and processing needed to check someone's history.

Think about what might happen if Google decides to sell Google Health to Aetna or United Healthcare someday in the future. They couldn't deny you officially, but could have a look at what you're posted in the past and find some other reason to deny you coverage.

That's not to say the idea of an electronic medical record is bad. It's just more comparible with a non-free-market health care system. If there was no incentive for someone to use the records to determine cost of care, then it would work. Public services are for the most part run with no expectation that you get back anything except social benefits -- look at public transport. For an example from the health community, look at the VA's EMR system. That agency's primary focus is providing the lowest cost care possible, and it's a publically funded plan. So an EMR makes sense because it saves the plan time and money.

Note to users: Change your GMail password

[chord.wav]

Remember that social site that fooled you to get your gmail account and password so you can "invite" all your friends? Remember that someone told you not to do so because is wasn't safe to make your password public but you didn't listen?

Well, now you just got a shinny new Penile Prosthesis Insertion - Non-inflatable AND a Penile Prosthesis Insertion- Inflatable.

Have a nice day.

That's okay... others will, and you'll be F'ed

[Animaether]

really, others -will-, for whatever reason. Perhaps it's a $100 discount given on their treatment if they allow their info to be shared with google - perhaps it's free medication for a month... who knows, who cares, others -will- participate.

And then what happens?
Say your dad participates. Google now has info on your dad. They find that he has a heart condition, and that this is hereditary.
Google also knows about you. It knows through social networking that your dad is, well, your dad.
Now insurance companies *may* (just because Google is not governed by HIPAA, doesn't mean they'll hand it out - nor does HIPAA prevent medical records from being 'oops' stolen).. know that...
1. Your dad has a hereditary heart condition
2. You're his son.
Ergo...
3. You may have this condition as well.

You think the insurance agency would do nothing with this? Hum.

---

Or, more broadly (and this can be a very interesting aspect of google health in general)...
Say that in your area, there's a 25% higher chance to develop lung cancer; as visualized on Google Health/Maps.
It doesn't matter, then, that you never participated - you live in that area, ergo.
This is already done with, say, crime statistics - charging you more for car insurance if cars tend to get stolen with some frequency in your area - it would be very naive to think that health statistics would not do the same.

And so forth. And so on.

Though most of the above the insurance agencies can already do anyway - google's just making it a heck of a lot easier for them.

Centralized Health Database for analysis

[JoshDM]

So, has there ever been a centralized database where people enter their health problems and can be observed an analyzed for patterns?

I signed in, entered some health information (asthma!) and some prescriptions I take (albuterol, advair!), some basic info (white male), but did not enter my age, nor any doctors I use or places I've visited.

A lot of prior posters appear to be "ooogidy boogidy" over nothing.

Re:Centralized Health Database for analysis

[Bushido Hacks]

I agree. "Google has a health product! That must mean THEY'RE A WITCH!"

Calm yourself, woman!

What if Google had a Google Crime product where you can track not the history of crimes, but the PATTERNS that they occur. For instance, most thefts occur within a mile of where a suspect lives.

What this product (Google Health) could do is CONFIDENTIALLY (Yes, CONFIDENTIALLY) track patterns for aliements or for statistical values. No one is going to know about your problems unless you share them PUBLICLY, and as we have seen in many medical dramas what happens when patients do not tell their doctor TRUTHFULLY what is wrong with them!

Personally, I would be more concerned about my ISP intercepting that information than Google having it.

end user license agreement (EULA)

[Benjamin_Wright]

Maybe patients can bolster privacy by inserting legal terms of access (like an end-user license agreement) into the content of their electronic medical records. The idea is not legal advice, just something to think about. --Ben -- Sample terms for public discussion: http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-fear-law-will-not-accord-adequate.html

Are they mad!

[Snaller]

I'd be ten times as sick if I started to write it down!

(And I'm not really sure G$$gle is my friend any longer, more like an acquaintance of some value)

Why not?

[RealityThreek]

Why isn't Google a health care clearinghouse?

Health care clearinghouses include billing services, repricing companies, community health management information systems, and value-added networks and switches if these entities perform clearinghouse functions.

I'm certainly no expert but I do speak english. Is Google not a "community health management information system"?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is NOT a healthcare clearinghouse (you might reasonably think it meets the definition - I used to think it would as well, but covered clearinghouses are directly linked to care providers, the definition does not cover third party service providers (of medical devices, Customized off the shelf software etc.).

Regarding HIPAA applicability to google: any HIPAA CE (Covered Entity, which includes most of your health care providers who also use or maintain electronic patient data) MUST include terms in a contractual relationship with a BA (Business Associate - anyone the CE does business with involving patient data) which mirror HIPAA requirements (this is the "Business Associate Rule").

YOU can release your records to Google, this would involve NO HIPAA issues.

If your Primary Care Provider is a CE (likely) and they contract with Google (as a health partner etc.) then the terms of that contract MUST include HIPAA protections (i.e. the CE must require, contractually, that the BA meet the same HIPAA requirements which the CE is subject to).

Re:Why not?

[Koiu Lpoi]

Neither am I an expert, but my knowledge of clearinghouses says that they need to do things like move checks, money transfers, and whatnot. I don't think just "storing information" qualifies, unfortunately.

Re:Why not?

[morgan_greywolf]

Mod parent up. I have training in HIPAA (I did IT project work involving systems with patient records for a major pharmacy). He's right.

Re:Why not?

[Silver Gryphon]

I worked for 6 years at one of the largest medical clearinghouses in the country. They're technically not a clearinghouse, as I understand the term, but they would hold a critical role that shouldn't be ignored or used to circumvent HIPAA.

If Google stores personal health information (PHI) it should be protected with the same security and privacy arrangements as are required in a clearinghouse. Why? Because, it could contain information on a governor, a celebrity, or their janitors. Information that would be very tempting to unscrupulous parties. Britney's in the hospital again? Let's see if we can dig up why. Oh, no, just her housekeeper's information is here... let's extort some information.

With HIPAA, all access to my records is by law traced. If Google is able to store my records and release them without that tracing, then I, as an educated consumer, will not use their service. 50 million other people will, without knowing the risks. I know how easy it is to sneak a peek behind the scenes or say, "hey, check this out" when you're not being watched... when HIPAA threatens you with jail time, it's a whole new ballgame.

If Google wants to store PHI, I believe they should follow HIPAA, SOX or whatever rule set is appropriate. If there's a loophole in HIPAA that allows a third party to accept 50 million volunteered health records, HIPAA should be updated asap.

Re:Why not?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Neither am I an expert, but my knowledge [answers.com] of clearinghouses says that they need to do things like move checks, money transfers, and whatnot. I don't think just "storing information" qualifies, unfortunately.

That is easily fixed. Once Google shares the medical information with another party (or subsidiary) then they can "officially" be called a clearinghouse.

Make no mistake Google is a clearinghouse for all your information...

FTC Covers This Which is STRONGER than HIPAA

[Blahbooboo3]

Enough with the HIPAA scare. Most of these PHR vendors privacy policies are STRONGER than HIPAA and are governed by the FTC which is (IMHO) MUCH stronger than HIPAA.

Re:FTC Covers This Which is STRONGER than HIPAA

[Silver Gryphon]

I'm not familiar with all the FTC laws and regulations, but do they make it so that Google can't ever change their privacy policy? Because I had a credit card do that, and it took me a while to notice the actual change in the 10 page privacy policy which was sent in its entirety, in which they could now share all my information (income, credit history in its entirety, purchase habits) with anyone they chose. All I need to opt out is repay the balance in full and close the account. Simple.

So if HIPAA doesn't apply, what law exists to stop Google from slipping in a policy change where now 50 million health records are shared with "select partners" including Amazon.com who will gladly spam you with the books you're most likely to want?

With HIPAA, there are laws, penalties and jailtime. If someone slips up inside the walls of Google and 'oopses' out a thousand records, does anyone get in legal trouble? And with HIPAA, the rules don't change on 30 days notice. This is why I and a billion others will be skeptical of any large database containing our own health information.

I'm not trying to argue with you personally, but if you know more about FTC or the other billion pages of privacy laws, maybe there really is something that applies and we're not seeing it.

oh goody goody....more stuff for ....

[3seas]

...digital leakage...

Not Very Technically Adept

[TCook]

It would be nice if they provided a way to export my health information to their CCR/G format so I could save it locally.

I also find it interesting that they are ready, willing and able to share my information with anyone THEY chose.

From the Agreement:

'11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.'

This along with the obvious lack of standardized vocabulary use in their user input choices; i.e. two separate yellow fever vaccines just because of a misspelling, doesn't give me a "warm fuzzy" feeling about putting any REAL Personal Health Information (PHI) on their site.

I get the impression that they have decided that they know all about IT design and failed to learn from the many years of research that has gone into the complexities of healthcare information systems.

Re:Not Very Technically Adept

[zuperduperman]

> It would be nice if they provided a way to export my health information to their CCR/G format so I could save it locally.

Agree - I was turned off by this service the moment I saw that it has no export facility. None whatsoever - unbelievable! You can't even print the freakin thing. How is this supposed to be useful if I want to take it along to my doctor? As far as I can tell, if you want your data back after giving it all to Google you're going to have to "link up" with one of the 3rd party providers, which I hope at least one of will let me *print*, but who I trust even less than Google.

It's the same old game as we've had with IM and email and you name it - they take your data, create a walled garden and then fight like hell to stop you ever being able to escape their little prison. As soon as you see that in a service, you know they do not have your best interests at heart.

This can help us find the "bad" doctors & loca

[ivi]

After [Queensland] Australia's & other "Doctor Death" tragedies (in which doctors' many errors have left patients much worse off, or dead...) and other situations, in which doctors sexually abuse or just undulu fondle patients, as part of their "treatment" - a partly public online data base might be just what we need to help find & eradicate "bad" medical professionals.

Let Google Health be modified to compile results of medical procedures - by the practitioner(s), who perform them - and compare longer-term performance with expected failure & complication rates across the hospital...

and then compare each hospital's rates to "best practice" - ...ie, to see if practitioners and/or hospitals need retraining or further investigation.

We could also get very useful (even valuable) data on risks of working / living in certain areas, eg, by post code... if correlations between location and diseases are available to all via Google Health.

Mapping sources of pollutions & overlaying incidence rate contour lines onto the same maps, might affect property prices... giving folks another [if economic] reason to cleanup the mess before people would move to a new development/location.

Gov't-held data is already held & analyzed, around the world, to support such analyses; eg:

While in South Australia, attending a Data Mining seminar (atop the EDS building in Adelaide), I heard some public sector IT managers report how Data Mining - even in -existing- Public Health Service databases - showed useful patterns of disease occuramces vs postcode...
but another public sector IT manager was quick to poit out that such results would not be made known to members of the public.

(Tell me: Does this kind of data hiding happen in such places as Sweden? I hope not... but give me the facts & some URLs where they are available; yes, some of us read Swedish here... ;-)

The Privacy Policy is the scary part

[HycoWhit]

The fine print of Google Health mentions your privacy is protect according to the Google's Privacy Policy. If you read Google's Privacy Policy, about halfway through Google makes clear if the government asks for your records they will be turned over with or without your knowledge.

Remember when AltaVista was the top search engine. Seeing Google trying extend their reach into this part of someone's life makes me wish the worst for Google. Maybe it is time for everyone to start using a new search engine.

About "big pharma"

[cshbell]

Bah. For anything drug-related, you'll find hundreds of big-pharma studies saying their pills are the only thing that'll cure you, and hundreds of other studies saying their pills will do nothing but kill ya. Personally, I love big pharma...but only for recreational purposes.

I've read this argument plenty of times, and I used to think this way myself, so I want to explain once why it misses the point. You're equivocating "big pharma" palliative and analgesic products, with "big pharma" pharmacological research, development, and production for severe, debilitating, or life-threatening medical conditions.

If you've never been sick, it's an easy mistake to make. I was completely healthy for my whole life, and used to think drug companies were nothing more than pill pushers. Then I got sick -- very, very sick. As in, nearly-died sick. The only thing that spared my life, aside from expert care from my physicians, were the drugs that I was prescribed. Without the medications that I was given, I would likely be dead. I'm not talking about aspirin or amoxicillin, I'm talking about finely-tuned steroids, anti-inflammatory drugs, and last-line-of-defense antibiotics. When you're wheeled into the emergency room with pain so severe that you literally can't breathe, "rest, tea, and herbs" don't even begin to cut it.

I'm not giving all pharmaceutical companies carte blanche. There have been, and continue to be, serious ethical problems with regard to how drugs are marketed to consumers and physicians, or how some drugs are rushed through clinical trials without the necessary levels of scrutiny. If you've never needed the big iron that pharmaceutical companies and the researchers that work for them develop, count yourself blessed. Having been in a position where I did need them and my life depended on them, I have a much greater appreciation for "big pharma," on a whole.

(On a side note, I'd like to add that my medical care would have been unaffordable if not for my being privileged with good health insurance. We need universal health care coverage so that expert medical attention isn't just a matter of privilege.)

Re:About "big pharma"

[Urza9814]

Well, most of their drugs are quite effective at what they do...the question is, at what cost? So yes, when you have some serious problems, it's definitely worth the risk. But you should only resort to them when truly necessary. Everyday things...cold, flu, allergies, sore muscles, insomnia, etc..., except in extreme cases, aren't worth the side effects of the pills. But no, I'm not the kind of person who thinks you shouldn't get hospital treatment for cancer, heart attacks, or pretty much anything that isn't something that'll happen to you several hundred times over your lifetime.

Eric Schmidt keynote HIMSS 08

[jzuccaro]

Google health explained by Eric Schmidt at the HIMSS conference. See for yourself.

I'm just as paranoid as the next /.er

[xclr8r]

and won't be putting my information online. However the possible benefits of this are.. 1. I can go travel anywhere in the world that has net access and be comfortable that if I have an unexpected illness/injury (makeing me unconscious) that the local doctor and my wife can pull up what medications I have severe allergic reactions to and not kill me accidently. 2. Verification of data. Let's say the next evolution of this google health is that I can request 'electronic data capture' of my medical records/history uploaded to my google profile to an inbox. I have the option of reviewing this information and if it is correct then including it to my complete profile. How many people know what was written in that folder the doctor and nurses write in gives to his staff to file away. This gives you an opportunity what kind of probe they stuck in you and how far up or in. This is also a check on the doctor's and staff.. they better record the right dosage, which in some hospitals is barcoded and can be scanned to a recording device before applying the medication. The scanning of medication also leads to being able to track what batch certain immunizations came out of. Tracking the batch number can verify if someone had a bad reaction to an immunization whethere that batch had a contaminate in it. 3. Pooling of data. We can see what percentage of google health users have X disease and see trends.... ie one zipcode starts getting a flare up and an investigation can be done to see what the causation of said disease is in that area is. As I said before though.. some serious protections will have to be in place before I ever use this service or I get really old and don't care about my privacy anymore and more worried about my health.

MiB

[mbstone]

If Google wants to be in the business of making it easier to deny people health care based on pre-existing conditions, why doesn't it just buy the Medical Information Bureau?

uh, maybe it's not such a good idea

[DragonTHC]

Google give you a place to enter literally all of your private medical information. maybe this isn't such a good idea.

since the information should be private, why would you voluntarily give that information out?

There doesn't seem to be any purpose to the site other than collecting your personal information.

Google Health.....

[IHC Navistar]

Every hypochondriac's wet dream come true.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Largest userbase for Google Health would be

[abhitux]

Largest userbase for Google Health would be Microsoft employees..

Google vs Government

[Per Abrahamsen]

If you include the legislative branch, the government can get any information they want from Google or any other private corporation.

So if you trust Google or any other corporation with your data, you implicitly trust the government

Re:Too late

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Osteopathic doctors are fully licensed to practice traditional western medicine and they for all practical purposes are indistinguishable from mds. Its a very strange history of how it transformed itself from quackary to second tier doctors (basically those who can't get into a md school end up in osteopathic schools).I went to school at the birthplace of osteopathy : kirksville, Missouri. There isn't a single md in the entire county. I injured my neck while I was at school. I was pretty nervous that the hospital would just make an adjustment, give me acupuncture, or magnets to heal it, but they just took a brief look and gave me a neck brace, muscle relaxers, and pain killers.

Re:You misspell HIPAA

[altek]

It's HIPAA, not HIPPA