Slashdot Mirror
Google Health Open Platform Is Great — Or Awful
JackPowers writes "The Google Health APIs enable portable, standardized, open architecture, extensible personal health records, which is nice but boring if they're just used to manage the paperwork of the doctor/patient relationship. But once the data is set free, all kinds of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 apps are possible. This article looks ahead 10 years at Best Case Scenarios. A follow-up article lists the Worst Case Scenarios."
No private company should be so entrenched in society that it would be impossible to survive without the service they provide. If I can't get a job without a Google Health "badge", then something somewhere has gone horribly wrong.
This is already a big problem with credit companies becoming so pervasive. It's also bad enough that private companies are leading the American military around by the nose. But that pales in comparison to the actual, direct, and personal limits imposed by something like the system the article is talking about.
Considering that the site's about peoples' insides, shouldn't that be "offal"?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Just what we need, more bullshit for buzzword fetishists.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Web 3.0? That's just silly.
Web 3.0? What is that supposed to be? A LAMP application hooked up to a cage of weasels?
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
But that doesn't mean they're good. Diet monitoring? Try this, or any other free web service that does it *without* needing your medical history. Fitness Monitoring? Doesn't Wii Fit do this? How about a simple spreadsheet? Travel? Is it that hard to look at The Weather Channel before you leave?
Honestly, this just sounds like candy-coating a terrible idea so that people will buy into it. None of the ideas on that page are lacking a non-Google implementation assuming you're not too lazy to do some footwork.
Then again, if you are too lazy, maybe whatever ill effects you receive from using Google's service are deserved...
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
Well then, I'm happy - or sad for them.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Unless this is mandated by somebody or other, you're free to post or not post whatever you want on Google health.
That's fine, but it does severely limit the usefulness of the product. As a physician, I'm not going to be inclined to spend much time looking at a highly edited version of somebody's medical history. There is a reason we ask for records from doctors or hospitals. It's far too easy to simply edit out the uncomfortable bits of your life. That of course, is perfectly within your rights, but my job is too look at the whole history, not bits and pieces.
I don't see this as taking off much in the professional sector - it may be popular in the direct-to-consumer advertising space (which is why I cynically suspect it exists), but it's too limited to be much use professionally. Not useless, but very limited.
The truly scary part is that the "10 worst" scenarios are much more likely to come true that the "10 best".
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Seems like a win-win to me.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Scientists are baffled by the realization that most things that matter are either Good - Or Bad.
As someone who deals with paper medical records all day, I welcome standardized electronic medical records. Not only would e-records be portable, they would also allow for greater continuity of care between healthcare providers. Obviously, security is an issue and I'd like to see more measures taken to ensure that our medical records are protected. As for the possibility of these records raising insurance premiums I think the best way around this is to create a national healthcare plan. I would think that in countries where there is national healthcare services, electronic medical records would be of great benefit since it's inevitable that such a large beaucratic undertaking would need centralized patient information. I would take issue with basing rates on people with healthier lifestyles. There are many in this country that aren't living healther lifestyles due to socio-economic factors. People that live in in poorer areas don't always have access to proper healthcare, are often not educated in the ways of maintaining health and don't have access to nutritional foods.
You think? Hmmm. How about someone in government realizes that AIDS costs the public treasury a huge amount of money, so they start penalizing a gay lifestyle? Or being unmarried, which shortens up your life? Or amusing yourself rock-climbing or bicycle racing, which are more dangerous than going to the gym and riding a stationary bicycle to nowhere?
More plausibly, how about someone in government thinks that lifestyle X is bad for you, and starts handing out tax penalties and rebates accordingly -- but he's wrong. Not like we've ever had any health fads that turned out to be nonsense, right? And no government bureaucrat would dream of making decisions when he doesn't really have enough information to make a good one, right?
You're thinking that it takes a physician the same time to read through your history and pluck out the important stuff that it would take you, a complete amateur with nearly zero understanding of how medicine works.
That's as logical as thinking that it would take Linus Torvalds as long to understand a kernel patch as J. Random User who's never coded a line in his life. Or that your car mechanic needs to carefully listen to every sound your jalopy makes to know whether it needs a valve job. Or that the conductor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic would have to get out a tuning fork and go carefully around to listen to each of his 150 musicians to know whether the orchestra is playing in tune.
I'm in Alaska, come up and visit. Bring your harpoon....
"Taking the time to read your entire medical history" may or may not be particularly relevant. If you are young and healthy without significant ongoing issues, it may be perfectly unnecessary. I likely don't care about the details of your tonsilectomy at age 6 (I might, however, if you had a significant anesthetic reaction).
But you bring up a good point that's generally obfuscated in these debates: You may not want every detail of a person's medical history at any given time. Sometimes you do. Having to wade through tons of extraneous detail makes it easy to miss important tidbits. Getting a 200 page printout from a 6 day hospitalization with everything including the janitor's notes doesn't help me much. Putting that in machine readable format helps me maybe a bit. What we don't have is an underlying, consistent framework for electronic medical records that's used by everyone and has the capability to organize a huge amount of information into a generally usable format.
There are baby steps out there, but it's a huge chicken and egg problem for the field. I personally see the digitalization of medical records happening *very* slowly - over the next 20 years or so. And that's a feature, not a bug folks. There are absolutely huge societal issues to be dealt with before we give some uber-governmental department the holy grail of databases. I'd rather have the current fragmented system then allow every government and corporate entity start data mining for whatever purpose of the week they feel important (or profitable).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Romeo and Juliet share STD data. They are both clean (or so the record says). Great. They can now enjoy sex with each other.
Then, over time, they decide that this relationship is really a great thing and they want to start looking into marriage. They get married. Everybody is happy.
Now that they're married (because nobody would be stupid enough to share this type of data BEFORE marriage...would they?), they share their genetic information with each other as they are talking about children. But, what's this?! Juliet sees that Romeo has a high propensity for Down Syndrome (or any other "disease" - take your pick). Well, this isn't good.
So, instead, Juliet decides to get a divorce and go on her merry way.
The End
I wish I could say more, but... This is the worst idea ever. It is also one of the biggest money pits. No hospital I've ever worked for would let control of that data go. We just had a long drawn out battle with one of our vendors about that. 2 years later they still don't have access to our data.
No ambulance in the world is going to give you an antibiotic. They're going to wait until they get to the ER and let the doc decide. Even if I, for some reason, decide that I'm giving you a drug you subsequently decide to have an anaphylactic reaction to it, well, that's why I have steroids and endotracheal tubes. If you're that sick we ask you the AMPLE history (Allergies, Medications, Past (Medical History), Last Meal, Event. If we can't get it out of you, well, then your likely sick enough to be run through some rather standardized stabilization protocols until we figure out just what you manage to do to yourself. Usually, it's readily apparent. If it's really complicated, it's likely that you are stable enough for the docs and staff to work through the problem bit by bit.
Yes, rapid access to medical information can be important and very occasionally life saving (but likely not). But Google Health isn't going to work for this. If you are unfortunate to have a serious medical condition, a small laminated paper with your doctor's name, brief past history, medication and allergies and maybe an old EKG shrunk down would do wonders. Stick in in your wallet. We always check that looking for cash, checks and your insurance card....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The same as web 2.0, which is the same as web 1.0 was. It's yuppie buzztalk for the clueless by people who miss the dotcom bubble.
Web 1.0 was "It's a series of tubes."
Web 2.0 is "It's a cloud."
Web 3.0 will be "It's pixie dust and fairie magic".
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
We already have HL7. Providers have the ability to exchange and consolidate your medical records directly and to provide electronic copies for the patient to physically retain to personally bring by sneakernet between their providers without the need for a proxy. The vast majority of people don't have that many medical providers, nor do they change them very often. It is neither necessary nor desirable to have a company like Google aggregate the records. Its only strength is in being the *only* repository, which is its greatest weakness as a single point of failure. If there are multiple companies like Google providing the service, how is that terribly different than polling the providers directly? Central clearinghouses might be useful, a la the credit reporting agencies. When someone has records on you, they publish that fact without publishing the actual records. So, in an emergency situation, a provider could ask the question "where does this person have records" and then proceed to retrieve them with proper clinical discretion on both ends.
See: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa
Centralizing that information takes away control from us as individuals.
I specifically stated that your medical records themselves would not be centralized and that your consent to release would be required and would further fall under the clinical discretion of each of your medical providers.
The only thing I was suggesting is that for emergency purposes, it would be possible to quickly locate records sources that you have explicitly authorized. Whether or not any particular situation meets your consent requirements to actually release the records is a totally different story, which was the whole point you so cleverly failed to understand.
A lot of people go get mental health care and pay out of their own pocket so that it isn't 'in the system'.
Your method of payment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your medical records and how they may -- or even MUST, with or without your consent (See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncphi/disss/nndss/PHS/infdis.htm ) -- be legally be released.
Sure, you can choose to go to witch doctors who keep no records to "stay off the grid." So what? Since the whole point of my post was "consent," what's your point? "I'm a super-secret rebel and I don't leave a paper trail?" Well, good for you, but what does that have to do with a single word of what I said?