| 5:16 pm on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
For reference, here was the an earlier story.
| 7:05 pm on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
--and other elements--
you still don't have Netf*ix?
*Edited, Star position.
| 7:41 pm on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Why in the world would you ever want to have your personal health records online and have a MSFT or Google managing your person health records?
A health information site, sure, but your personal health records, that is just going waaaaaaaay to far. That is info that should remain between you and your doctor and maybe a health insurance co if they need it. Is there no end to the privacy invasion?
| 9:40 pm on Oct 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Especially with the govt (in the U.S., at least) increasingly trying to pressure search engines and phone companies to turn over data about searches made by citizens, phone records, etc. Do we really want the government to have the ability to pry into our lives as far as our health and insurability (especially in a country where insurance company greed is running rampant) even more than it already does? Umm, no thanks.
| 12:38 pm on Oct 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
From the article:
|...making records more accessible and portable for patients...That means their minutes per patient has got to go down, and the less time they have to spend finding and going over patient records the better. |
What? I can't even start seeing a doctor unless I fill out 10 forms. Then, when I'm seeing him, one of the 20 plus nurses or assistants that work there have already weighed me, taken my BP and have my file ready.
Who in the hell said there were massive problems with doctors finding patients records? I've never seen that before, or even heard of it.
This kind of "do goodism" (a phrase that's deserves it's bad rap), is the same kind of top down, central management, power centered crap that socialist politicians try to sell the voters.
I think that article left out another quote by Marissa Mayer:
"We need this, so you should agree. Then we can have this product and charge you for it, even though we know this was a made up problem and never really needed to build this moronic thing in the first place."
| 1:40 am on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
They won't charge for it at least not the consumer, but can you imagine if a company has a personal profile that includes your search and purchase activity and your health history.
Any idea how much money there is in pharma DTC advertising? Any idea how much companies would pay to target the latest & greatest prescription drugs to people who have indications for the drug and who could probably address their needs with a much cheaper generic or a change in lifestyle habits?
| 2:04 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
its simple... they are doing it because big pharma CPM pays the most of any web category/niche. They also don't have anything to offer in this space right now. For them, it's a void of low hanging fruit.
| 4:38 pm on Oct 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I actually heard talk about this from a Health Search Engine vice president about 9 months ago. It seemed the direction that all the big players were moving in. But even then, I couldn't understand why they all thought that was a good idea or the next big thing in health searching.
Didn't make sense to me then, doesn't now.
| 6:19 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|that incorporates personal medical records |
they must all have PHD's alright, in cluelessness
one acronym: HIPPA
|I couldn't understand why they all thought that was a good idea or the next big thing in health searching. |
because plagiarism is acceptable in the best schools now.
| 6:33 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Google has developed a prototype online platform for its health offering that incorporates personal medical records |
Microsoft has been saying the same thing [nytimes.com] for quite sometime now.
|Privacy is a huge issue and one likely to slow the spread of personal health records. But Microsoft’s privacy principles have impressed Dr. Deborah Peel, chairwoman of the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation, a nonprofit group. In terms of patient control, and agreeing to outside audits, “Microsoft is setting an industry standard for privacy,” said Dr. Peel. |
Is it where the money is now?
and why do those companies think the same thing most of the time? :)
| 7:39 am on Oct 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
. . . Ask [ditii.com] is in it as well.
Perhaps they all took a lesson or two from all those spams being sent.
One-third Of Spam Is 'Health'-related [sciencedaily.com]
Perhaps, I need a blog or two on health, any ideas?
| 12:41 am on Oct 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Nowdays, medicine is practiced in a very disjointed way. In addition to one's primary physician there are often several specialists and its hard to keep everyone on the same page, especially re: medications. What's worse, (in my community) hospitalization involves being passed off to a "Hospitalist" and, another set of consultants (maybe) all of whom have to get up to speed on the medical history, medications etc. Most health care workers would welcome a central resource for patient information as long as privacy issues were met.
| 1:04 am on Oct 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Nowdays, medicine is practiced in a very disjointed way. In addition to one's primary physician there are often several specialists and its hard to keep everyone on the same page, especially re: medications. |
...so.... the big advantage is that for people on lots of medications, there will be less chance of a specialist making an error? That's a small gain, for a small slice of the population.
The "disjointed" practice of medicine isn't all bad, either. Medical professionals can often end up on diagnostic railway tracks due to someone else's bias, missing info, wrong, info, and so on. That episode of Seinfeld where Elaine can't shake her negative medical record is funny for a reason- it's true.
So this system might be solving non-existent problems, but it's certainly making real problems worse. With the Google system, any mistakes are well and truly locked in. They become fact, propagated to every health professional you'll ever meet, from now till eternity.
Some idiot doctor thinks you're malingering? A nurse thinks you're argumentative? Have a personality disorder? A specialist thinks you're a hypochondriac? Bad luck pal. That's you forever after.
| 7:04 pm on Oct 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It sounds pretty useful to me, and I'd trust Google a lot more than I'd trust the medical insurers, HMOs, and/or healthcare corporations that already have more records about me and my innards than I do.
| 1:48 am on Oct 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I'd trust Google a lot more than I'd trust the medical insurers, HMOs, and/or healthcare corporations |
Why? They'll all be teaming up together if this thing takes off. There's no rational reason for you to trust one over the other. Because Google are "not evil?" I don't think medical insurers, healthcare corporations etc are "evil" either, and they at least have a solid understanding of the importance of privacy.
| 2:36 am on Oct 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I don't think medical insurers, healthcare corporations etc are "evil" either |
I think some of them are, but in any case, I'll reserve judgment on Google's healthcare initiative until we have more facts.
| 3:32 pm on Oct 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Not sure what this is to be honest. But is there a way to opt out i.e. to make sure Google have no records belonging to me, regardless of whether a doctor I visit participates?