Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google to Offer Online Personal Health Records

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:22 PM
from the google-your-liver-profile dept.
Businesses Google The Internet IT
hhavensteincw writes "Less than two weeks after Microsoft announced plans to offer personal health records, Google announced today that it plans to offer online personal health records to help patients tote and store their own x-rays and other health data. Google made the announcement Wednesday at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Google to offer online personal health records by hhavensteincw (1127347)
[+] Science: Google to Begin Storing Patients' Health Records 214 comments
mytrip writes with news that Google's health record archive is about to be tested with the assistance of the Cleveland Clinic. Thousands of patients (who must approve the transfer of information) will have access to everything from their medical histories to lab results through what Google considers a "logical extension" of their search engine. We discussed the planning of this system last year. "Each health profile, including information about prescriptions, allergies and medical histories, will be protected by a password that's also required to use other Google services such as e-mail and personalized search tools. The health venture also will provide more fodder for privacy watchdogs who believe Google already knows too much about the interests and habits of its users as its computers log their search requests and store their e-mail discussions. Prodded by the criticism, Google last year introduced a new system that purges people's search records after 18 months. In a show of its privacy commitment, Google also successfully rebuffed the U.S. Justice Department's demand to examine millions of its users' search requests in a court battle two years ago."
[+] Google Health Opens To the Public 199 comments
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google to Offer Online Personal Health Records 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:25PM (#21020955)
    We don't have enough of your personal data. Why don't you let us have your health records too?

    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jarjarthejedi (996957) <bookreader13@cox.TEAnet minus caffeine> on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:35PM (#21021015) Journal
      Unfortunately that's pretty close to the facts...Google is starting to get closer and closer to that satirical picture where someone googles "Where are my Car Keys" and Google actually knows. For some this may be a boon, but it also has negative impacts as well.

    • The writing's on the wall (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There's no excuse for using Google for anything. Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public, it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are.

      "Free" is far, far too expensive of a price to pay for any of Google's "services", as neat as they may be.

      http://www.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org] (they even have a https Firefox plugin and an IE agent available) is a good

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FleaPlus (6935)
        Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public

        Well, uh, yes. They're a search company. Collecting information on everything and anything is what they do.

        it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are

        Well yes, they must obviously be a branch of the CIA/Haliburton! If not them, then the Illuminati/Freemason coalition must be responsible for Google's l

      • Re:The writing's on the wall (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Thursday October 18 2007, @06:20AM (#21022781) Homepage
        Their ultimate goal is plain as pie: Make a shitload of money. That tends to be the ultimate goal of most companies. You're correct to be suspicious: Their goal of making money may not align well with -your- various goals.

      • Google mission statement (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Gorimek (61128) on Thursday October 18 2007, @08:35AM (#21023815) Homepage
        As stated on http://www.google.com/corporate/ [google.com], Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

        It's hardly surprising then, or nefarious, that Google's product announcements tend to focus on information gathering and management rather than, say, toasters.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Ctrl-Z (28806)
            You must be from a parallel universe. Did you not see what AltaVista had become around the time Google arrived? I suppose if you were blocking ads then it was just fine, but be realistic.
          • ...and comparatively slow and less precise in relevance. I also remember AltaVista as the best thing going before I'd heard of Google (and NorthernLight at about the same time, if anyone remembers that). Searching for specific code snippets and developer resources was tedious, and it got *much* easier for me when Google came along.

            Really, does anyone remember how the speed difference felt at the time? Google was the first major search engine I saw printing the search execution time on the results page, and

        • Gee, I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

          by porkThreeWays (895269) on Thursday October 18 2007, @08:07AM (#21023539)
          Let's pick it apart as to why the post is a troll

          There's no excuse for using Google for anything.
          This suggests that google is so fundamentally evil none of their products can be trusted.

          Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public
          There's no evidence that google is in any way, shape, or form, trying to acquire information specifically on the public. This little modifier makes it seem like google's ultimate goal is to know everything about everyone, regardless of the price paid. Google's real searching goal is to collect as much publicly available information on all subjects as possible. That's a huge difference. The GP wants to make it seem somehow Google has plans to control people via privileged information.

          it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are.
          I can't even begin to fathom what they are suggesting here. Maybe that the NSA somehow funds google and there's some covert CIA plan to use google to take over the world? I think the ultimate gist of the quote is somehow google gets secret funding from some entity that ultimately wants total control over the world. The real reason google became so successful so quickly is because their leaders and founders are really really smart (shocking, I know). Most large tech companies are large because they got into the game early and made OK products w/ a little bit of strong arming. Google actually got into the market fairly late in the game with many many obstacles to overcome. They become popular based of products that were so superior people took a step back and said "why are we still using this garbage when google X is so much better". That takes a lot for people to do.

    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by garcia (6573) on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:51PM (#21021119) Homepage
      Why don't you let us have your health records too?

      The operative word here is "let". It's not like they are indexing publicly available records and placing them out there in one easy to locate spot for everyone to see. People choose to use GMail, have their conversations logged in GTalk, catalog their daily schedules and sync their work calendaring to GCalendar, and search for ways to kill their lovers in the most secretive ways on Vanilla Google.

      If someone wants to offer up their personal privacy to a company, so be it. While I'm not telling you to stop your personal crusade to educate the retarded general public, I'm just telling you that it's better than what other companies are probably doing behind closed doors. I guarantee that Google, even in its infinitely undetermined future evil ways will be less so than 99% of the rest of the companies out there.

      I really hope that I don't get proven wrong ;)

      • It's not like they are indexing publicly available records and placing them out there in one easy to locate spot for everyone to see.

        They would if there were any such records. And it'd only bother them when you put in "Eric Schmidt medical records". Then they'd throw a bit of a tantrum and not talk to you for a year.

        I guarantee that Google, even in its infinitely undetermined future evil ways will be less so than 99% of the rest of the companies out there.

        So what is your guarantee worth? Seriously. Because

          • No, the intelligent don't give a damn about ads, they learn to tune them out automatically.

            I'm only part serious, of course (although that is what I do)... my point is to stop being smug about what you're doing, attitudes like that make life worse for everyone.

    • Data mining (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quokkapox (847798) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:55PM (#21021135)

      Epidemiological data mining. Google Earth overlays, with clusters of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and E. coli infections near fast food restaurants. There might be clusters of radon-related lung cancer. There are some really nifty things you could find out by centralizing medical records. Alter or improve traffic patterns in neighborhoods where statistically more people are getting hit by cars.

      I'm not advocating that we actually do all this, just pointing out some possibilities.

      • Re:Data mining (Score:4, Funny)

        by gaspyy (514539) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:32AM (#21021319)
        Data mining, when done well, can be very beneficial.
        Somehow, all I can think of is more targeted ads for Viagra instead.
      • The CDC Epidemiology Program Office [cdc.gov] is one the best, if not the best, epidemiology programs in the world. And they work with sanitized (i.e. private) data and they don't need to know how many times a day you read Slashdot or what type of dirty messages your sending your s/o (although that might be related to your infection ;p). As others have pointed out above, giving data like this to Google is just *stupid*. The medical records I have in my possession are in a locked fire-safe and only come out when I
    • The problem is Google doesn't spell out how they use your data. I believed that Google only displayed ads based on what was on the page when I opened an e-mail. They MIGHT do this, or they might scour the e-mail for information and attach it to my username. I don't know. When Gmail was first launched Google made it sound like they did the former, only after reading the privacy policy did I realize they left themselves open to do the latter.

          • Re:Do you know what you're paying? (Score:4, Informative)

            by cduffy (652) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:43AM (#21021629)

            They made it sound like they didn't harvest e-mails.
            No, they didn't. Assured you there were no real privacy concerns, yes. Claim they didn't do automated analysis of email contents for purposes of searching ads, no.

            Seriously -- I was reading their statements at the time, and it was clear as day. They do automated analysis for targeting ads, but don't do any cross-correlation that would be a privacy breach in the sense that any other human being finds out something they shouldn't.
    • I'm not sure when people started trusting Oracle, MS, Sun, Apple, etc, more than Google. Every one of the previously mentioned companies have burned me with marketing schemes, mistrust, EULA's, and flat out lies... except Google. This technology shift is going to happen regardless. I'd MUCH rather have Google housing my information than Microsoft. Google has never abused my trust.

      People cry constantly about Google having too much information. They have just as much information as everyone else. They are

  • awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thatshortkid (808634) on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:31PM (#21020975)
    targeted ads for calcium supplements next to broken bone x-rays, valtrex next to any note with keyword "itchy" or "burns", viagra/levitra with "limp". the possibilities are endless!

  • Just think... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Perseid (660451) on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:33PM (#21020995)
    ...of all the targeted ads you'll get if you have erectile dysfunction...

  • old idea (Score:4, Informative)

    by bwy (726112) on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:34PM (#21021003)
    This idea is far from new. I interviewed with a small company back in 99 called e-medsoft.com that was trying to put medical records online. The idea has a lot of merit when you look at all the paper that moves from place to place in the health care industry. The company I interviewed with went belly up, because it was too hard to get people to adopt the technology. It needs to be nearly ubiquitous to add the most value. Plus, there are a lot of regulations and privacy laws in place which make it a little more difficult to effectively do business in this space.
    • You're right, this isn't new, but now you have well known established companies doing it and a fairly recent natural disaster(Katrina). While Katrina didn't cause everyone to make plans, buy emergency supplies, etc. It is still memorable enough to make people take an easier step like electronically available medical records.

    • Re:old idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jd (1658) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kapimi]> on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:23AM (#21021541) Homepage Journal
      Yes, but name anything on the web today that wasn't being done by some combination of archie, gopher and WAIS. It all depends, of course, on the way in which this is done. There are MANY applications now for Linux for processing EEG and EKG data, CAT scans, MRIs and the like. Will either company develop formats that interoperate with these?

      There are also packages specifically designed for indexing and sharing files. Will there be a DSpace filter supplied? Will Glimpse be able to search the metadata? Is any geographical data going to be in a format a GIS database can handle? (A person may wish to compare health information with where they were living at the time, for example. I'll assume for a moment that the data is confidential to the person concerned, at least in Europe where data privacy laws will be involved, and hopefully anonymous anywhere it's not confidential.)

      Will data be correlatable or will each data chunk be in total isolation? Correlations might be interesting to people who suspect an undiagnosed underlying condition where multiple diagnosed symptoms exist and are treated, and might be a lot more convincing to doctors than patients who say "well, I don't think this really expensive treatment plan is working too well..."

      It matters very little what people are saying they will code. Some things will prove intractable when the project specification is drawn up, when the developers try to implement it or when the managers run out of budget. Other things will evolve out of brainstorming sessions and wild drunken parties during the project. What actually ends up happening is rarely what is envisaged at the start, for all kinds of reasons. Sure, we can guess at what would be logical, but since when has a single project - Open Source, Closed Source or Hot Sauce - ever ended up being entirely - or even remotely - logical?

  • Sheldon [sheldoncomics.com] called this!

  • Ob quote! (Score:5, Funny)

    by garcia (6573) on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:39PM (#21021039) Homepage
    I can't believe I'm about to quote this movie, I really never thought it would happen... From Roadhouse [imdb.com]:

    Doc: Do you always carry your medical record around with you?
    Dalton: Saves time.

    Now, if only we could have a story that I could relate the sex scene in the back room of the bar to. "But I'm on my break!"
    • Frighteningly enough, I actually used to have a file with my records, copies of my x-rays, etc in it because it was easier than having them look everything up or call various specialists because of a few past injuries.

      It got to the point where I just ended up memorizing most of it and a fair chunk of my family med history. Freaked the heck out of one doc the first time I saw her and she asked me if I had any family histories of certain things and various questions about past medical history.

      She just looked

  • Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2007, @11:44PM (#21021083)
    Why can't *I* keep my medical records on me, on my person with a password on me, on my person?

    The way I figure it is an encrypted USB drive and public key that I give my current provider.

    I would also like to fire them (and their ability to have access to my records) at whim.

    Unlike Clooney, I want *MY* data to be MINE. Not in the hands of others.

    Google with my records? I don't think so.

    • Re:Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NIckGorton (974753) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:08AM (#21021485)
      Excellent idea. Though if I were you, I would also consider emailing the pertinent stuff to yourself lest your drive be lost in the car wreck when you get to the ER. I have had patients in the past who said "If you can get me online I can get you my old EKG, medications list, etc" and that has been quite useful.

      I would also like to fire them (and their ability to have access to my records) at whim.
      For future records, yes. If I treat you and subsequently you fire me, you have every right that I not be able to see records of your future medical care. However, any records of your care (or records you previously have had sent to me from other providers) not only should, but must (by law) be maintained by me and thus available to me.
      Of course I might be willing to agree to remove your records from my office or record storage facility if: 1) it were no longer against the law, 2) there was no issue with FDA regulated drug abuse or diversion, and 3) by doing so you relinquish all rights in the future to sue me since your medical record is my entire documentation of my version of events should we have a disagreement in the future.

      • If I take a picture of you, it is a picture of YOU, but MY picture. The english language really fails here because you could also say it is your picture as in you are in the picture without actually owning said picture.

        Medical records are of a person, but are created by another person reflecting that persons opinions about that other person. Who owns a record, the person who wrote it or who it is about? You can say that you want your records in your hands but you are quit right that this would remove from

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lahi (316099)
        The obvious solution is to consider the data as a record of the relation between the health care provider and the patient. Both have interests in preserving a copy of these data, and in ensuring that they are not tampered with. So obviously each should store a copy, signed by each party. The health care provider could optionally be allowed or required by law to store the data for a certain period and/or discard the data after a certain time.

        The question is, would it be prudent to impose a similar requiremen
  • This is great, now we can see celebrity medical records. CmdrTaco's records should pop right up!
  • Google announced today that it plans to offer online personal health records to help patients tote and store their own x-rays and other health data.

    What, are they going to put all the ones and zeros in little baggies or something?

  • Good on Google.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by dilby (725275) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:29AM (#21021299) Journal
    For finally finding a shark to jump.

  • Dear Google, dear Microsoft, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi (895663) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:58AM (#21021705)
    You can have my health records when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

  • What data? (Score:5, Informative)

    by NIckGorton (974753) on Thursday October 18 2007, @02:29AM (#21021895)
    The one concern that I would have about this in the hands of the consumer is data suppression. For 97% of people that is of no importance, but in a small percentage its pertinent. (I am an ER doctor, so necessarily I am a bit jaded.)

    For example, I've been lied to many times by patients regarding narcotic pain medicine prescriptions. For example, I treated someone this year to whom I gave an rx for 30 vicodins. I get a letter a month later from the State Controlled Substance guys (because one physician who rx'd to this patient requested a print out of the patient's controlled substance prescription records - which triggers a letter sent to everyone who rx'd him controlled medicines in the past.) So this guy had gotten the equivalent of 30 vicodins daily over a period of a few months (from many doctors, using different pharmacies, often getting two or three rxs in one day.) This means either he is in fulminant liver failure from all the tylenol or he's selling it for fun'n'profit.

    So now, if he returns to my hospital (or any of the physicians or hospitals he shopped at) any provider who has not seen him before can pull his record their and see his real history. That's the benefit of a record that is out of the hands of the patient. Now that is meaningless for the 97% of people who are above-board. However the fact that the 3% exist do mean that any patient maintained record that providers can't add to independent of the patient's wishes will be taken with at least a bit of a grain of salt in some circumstances. Your old EKG or Chest Xray is not going to be suspect, but the report that you have only filled one rx for vicodin in the past 6 years and your 'documented allergy' to every pain medicine except for vicodin might be a bit suspect.

  • New Google ads (Score:4, Funny)

    by martin-boundary (547041) on Thursday October 18 2007, @02:45AM (#21021963)
    And here are the new targeted Google ads for various demographics:

    Gambler demographic: You seem to be having some broken kneecaps. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy tips on how to repay your 30% loans before the end of the week, guaranteed'?

    Soccer mom demographic: You seem to be having a broken hipbone. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy excuses to tell your husband when your secret lover is too rough in bed'?

    School nerd demographic: You seem to be having a broken finger. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy ways to teach your football team a lesson they'll remember for a long time'?

    Protester demographic: You seem to be having a broken arm. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy ways to taunt the cops safely in any street march'?

    Soldier demographic: You seem to be having a broken foot. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy ways to break doors in during house to house combat'?

  • The future by discovery (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Thursday October 18 2007, @06:30AM (#21022827)
    I remember those three episodes by Discovery on our possible future.

    In one of the episodes, some guy was pouring old urine in his own toilet, since the toilet was equipped with built-in analyzer. The analyzer would catch he had some beer yesterday, while the doctor told him his heath condition doesn't allow alcohol.

    If the toilet detects he had beer, it'll go in his central medical record, his insurance company would see this, and he'd lose his medical insurance.

    He later fell through a window after an accident, and the blood test went to the insurance company again, and he lost his insurance, remaining to be left dying, although this had nothing to do with his health condition prior to the accident.

  • EMRs Useless without Interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2007, @06:39AM (#21022881)
    Microsoft wants your electronic medical records. So does Google. So do dozens of startups, some dead, some alive and well. What do all these privately owned for-profit companies' plans have in common? Profit motive. What do their data formats have in common? Not a thing. So if a patient's customary healthcare provider uses, say, U_Med_Data (a fictitious company, I hope), and her employer changes insurance carriers so she has to choose a new healthcare provider who uses, say, Microsoft or Google, U_Med_Data's proprietary data formats mean the patient's records can not be transferred to the new carrier's system except on paper, which of course defeats the purpose of EMRs.

    Every large medical center has EMRs to promote in-system efficiency and communication. Their EMRs are bought from different vendors, then woven into the center's overall I.T. fabric, including billing of patients, primary and secondary insurers, prescription writing and filling, and case management. If the medical center wanted to change EMR providers, good luck, without a costly conversion. And if he patient changes to another provider, again, the records stay, or possibly get printed to send to the new provider.

    Everyone agrees EMRs are great for efficiency, accuracy, and completeness - but the promise of EMRs is only a pipe dream without standards and interoperability, not to mention iron-clad built-in privacy and security to ensure that private records stay private.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mudshark (19714)
          Try a judicious amount of wavelet compression. You can get 100:1 and better while retaining a highly accurate image. JPEG-2000 uses wavelets and is an accepted part of the DICOM standard for diagnostic imaging. You do want a qualified person deciding how much compression to apply once it gets to the lossy threshhold (~10:1 or so).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lahi (316099)
        Sure he does. If I give you a beer, that beer is free. For you that is. I probably paid for it. If a group of people pool their money to buy a couple of beer crates, and party - guess what: the beer is free. Even though everyone in the group paid for it. Why? Because of the implication, that enough beer is bought, so that the likelihood of anyone being "thirsty" afterwards, is sufficiently small. There is no restriction that you can only drink whatever it is you actually paid for. Sure, some will drink a bi

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.