Google today announced a pilot program (read: closed beta) of their health records application. The program will be conducted at Cleveland Clinic hospital in Cleveland, Ohio and will include under 10,000 patients. The pilot program will run six to eight weeks with the eventual goal to roll the program out to a broader user base if the test is a success. While there are certainly upsides to having medical records stored in a single, patient-accessible location, there are also serious privacy concerns.
The Cleveland Clinic already uses an electronic records system called eCleveland Clinic MyChart for 100,000 of its patients. Those who opted into the Google pilot will have their records imported to a password-protected Google account. It isn't exactly clear how Google Health will look from a patient standpoint, except that the system will store information about things like prescription info, allergies, and medical history.
One of the major upsides to having health information stored online is that it makes keeping track of your health easier. As Alan Newberger, an engineer at Google, pointed out this morning in a blog post announcing Google's health product, he didn't realize he had seasonal allergies until he connected the dots between the "cold" he got last April, and the one he got the year before at the same time. "I've often been overwhelmed when trying to determine or track a condition, because my personal record of health information is either nonexistent, or it's spread on forms and receipts from (at least) a dozen doctors and five insurance companies," he wrote.
Having your health information in one place can greatly eliminate hassles when doing things like switching doctors, or moving from a general practitioner to a specialist. If transporting relevant medical data to your new doctor is as simple as a couple of clicks, that can save you a lot of time and headache. Easier access for trusted doctors or emergency medical workers can also mean faster and more accurate diagnoses and less chance of mistakes in the operating room (such as administering a medication to a patient to which they are allergic).
But the big drawback to storing medical records online is privacy. As the Associated Press points out, third-party services aren't covered in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a 1996 US law which created standards about how medical information can be shared. What that means, according to Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum, is that anyone who trusts an online medical records service could be making it easier for the government or a legal adversary to gain access to their medical records. Further, information not controlled under HIPAA might theoretically be used for marketing purposes.
Google isn't the only one getting into online health records. Steve Case's Revolution Health, WebMD, and Microsoft all have similar products. When Microsoft announced their Health Vault initiative last October, we touched on many of the same issues.
We agreed with Greg Sterling of Search Engine Land, who noted that online health records initiatives like those from Google or Microsoft are inextricably tied in the US to the success or failure of universal health care plans. People will be far more likely to feel comfortable putting their health records online knowing that their insurance coverage won't be in jeopardy should that information leak out.
As we wrote in October, it is very likely that eventually health records will be stored online. The benefits are too great and the companies pushing for it have very deep pockets and wield a lot of power. But there is still a lot of leg work to be done before people will trust companies like Google and Microsoft with their health information.
Would you trust Google, Microsoft, or any other company with your personal health information? If health care was guaranteed to you regardless of your medical history would you be more apt to store health records online? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Google is an advertising broker. That makes them the wrong player.
Sorry to be lame and link to (my) posts on the subject but they're here and here.
Google has a lot of love to give to the category, but not by storing your medical records. Leave that to an organization that's (a) without conflicts and (b) bound by data protection acts (similar to credit bureaus).
Posted by: Aaron | February 21, 2008 10:41 AMSuch things are inevitable by definition. Very soon this information would go online. The smart thing would be ensure it stays in safe hands under a set of public guidelines that guarantee the safety and privacy of our data.
- It does not matter if its Google/Microsoft, both of them would buckle if a powerful enough government demanded they handover the data. Personal data privacy should be granted the same regard as the first amendment
- All data to be stored, managed etc in physically isolated servers
- This has to be an utility service, with strict SLAs, with citizens automatically taxed a small amount for the maintenance of such data.
Ok, have not slept well last couple of days!
Posted by: Mahesh CR | February 21, 2008 10:59 AMThis is a good one from Google. They will of course follow the security medical standards, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPPA,. This way the doctor can communicate with the pharmacy and get the right drugs instead of some scribbled notes and making plenty of mistakes. It is also good for us to have medical records so we can share it with doctors. Currently if they ask us our records, we can't give 'em a decent answer, so why not have it online in a secure environment.
Posted by: Chris | February 21, 2008 11:22 AMAbsolutely not! No way am I going to trust any personal health information at all to any online service. Period. I don't care how much they say they "care" and are "taking measures to ensure privacy/security". The fact is that there is just no (fairly) sure way to guarantee my information won't be abused/leaked if it's in the hands of a company and not my doctor(s). Yes, yes, I know, hospitals are "companies", but you get my meaning.
Posted by: Nick T | February 21, 2008 12:30 PMNo!
Posted by: Damon Henry | February 22, 2008 5:43 AMPeople is really sensible to the confidentiality of their medical data. It is critical information.
The danger with Google Health and HealthVault is that somebody in the future crack their security systems.
Also the fact about a private company getting data about your health must concern us.
There is an alternative, http://www.keyose.com/, designed by Julio Bonis, the doctor that described the first case of wiiitis. Its philosophy is based on anonymous users. A smart mechanism allows the store of clinical record without asking you any personal data (not even your email).
Confidentiality is in such a way assured.
Posted by: Carlos | February 23, 2008 6:52 PMAny program that can stop the fraud that is going through this Country with Medical Bills & Insurance Company would always be good... We have to have some way to protect the People... It could also be used by Doctors to get information to other Doctors if their Patients move to another State our Country!!!
Posted by: Larry | February 24, 2008 8:07 AMMaybe patients can use contract law to enhance the privacy of their health records. http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/contracts-for-patient-privacy.html
Posted by: Benjamin Wright | February 25, 2008 6:10 AMHi!!
Awesome and very informative site,actually I need this kind of site. Thanks,And I want share something with you , Healthy eating is all about balanced and moderate eating, consisting of healthy meals at least three times per day. I got a site similar to your site and i hope this will helps you a lot .. Thanks !
Posted by: Self-esteem | February 29, 2008 3:57 PM