Google and Microsoft are scrambling to revolutionize information sharing within the health care industry, according to The New York Times:
By combining better Internet search tools, the vast resources of the Web and online personal health records, both companies are betting they can enable people to make smarter choices about their health habits and medical care....
The Google and Microsoft initiatives would give much more control to individuals, a trend many health experts see as inevitable. "Patients will ultimately be the stewards of their own information," said John Halamka, a physician and chief information officer of the Harvard Medical School.
The impetus for these initiatives ultimately boils down to the fact that individuals' personal health information is in a state of disarray. According to Vince Kuraitis, founder of Better Health Technologies, LLC:
The situation is sad, but not difficult to describe. Your health care and wellness information is 1) scattered everywhere, and 2) not in standardized formats suitable for a global information economy....
From a patient’s POV: “....Most of [my personal health information] is on paper, while some might be electronically stored. This information exists in the records of doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, labs, imaging centers, therapy centers, counselors, etc. Some of it is still in my head.”.....
Second, not only is information scattered, but standards for defining and sharing the data are still evolving; where standards exist, many of them predate the Internet. Standards about how to define consistently the information (clinical standards) and to transmit and exchange the information (technical standards) are not yet formalized and agreed upon:
Currently, approximately 20 percent of U.S. patients have computerized records instead of the old fashioned paper ones. Although the Bush administration is encouraging the health industry to accelerate its transition to electronic records, those records are mostly controlled by doctors, hospitals and insurers. Should a patient move to another state, the record will likely stay put.
Although success for Google and Microsoft in this venture is far from certain - there are, after all, smaller companies that specialize in medical data that have a head start in the field and concerns, such as medical privacy - Google and Microsoft are both highly committed.
From The New York Times:
Neither company will discuss their plans in detail. But Microsoft's consumer-oriented effort is scheduled to be announced this fall, while Google's has been delayed and will probably not be introduced until next year, according to people who have been briefed on the plans.
Google did, however, show a prototype of its Google Health system to a collection of health advisers and professionals. According to Kuraitis:
We’ve been provided a number of clues about the technology model that GH is likely to develop:
- Patient centric
- A personal health URL
- Automated date mechanisms to gather and store PHI
- Interoperable technical standards: XML and the Continuity of Care Record (CCR) standard
- A user interface
- Appropriate security and confidentiality measures
- Value added functionality (over time)
The idea of being able to type your name and password into some sort of secure search engine and retrieve your health information could be very appealing, especially in comparison to the cumbersome process of accessing paper records scattered in multiple locations. This could be helpful to both patients and doctors. Neverheless, big questions remain, especially in regard to how such a system might affect medical privacy.
Something like [Google Health] fits perfectly with Google’s strategy of “organizing the world’s information and making it accessible to everyone.” Of course, this “everyone” can include insurance companies and the Department of Homeland Security, who would love to have an easily navigable database of the populations’ health records, which might not be something people want.
I'm really interested, but I want to see the details before I sign up.
