digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Google to Store Patients' Health Records

bits.blogs.nytimes.com — For 18 months, Google has been working to come up with a product offering and a strategy in the promising field of consumer health information. Until now, the search giant hasn ’t had anything to show for its labors other than bumps along the way—delays and a management change.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tim507, on 02/24/2008, -9/+3I have learned to deal with things like this, and assume that nothing is safe from others...i knew it would happen at some point knowing them..doesnt really bother me.
  • ZephyrNinety, on 02/24/2008, -7/+27You know, I love Google but it is very possible they could have a monopoly on the entire world sooner or later.
    But like I said, I love Google.
    • LightSpeed4, on 02/24/2008, -8/+10Here it is folks, a google fanboy. He will let his "beloved" corporation push him around and spy on his medical records, as long as they exist. Amazing...

      overabundance of google fanboys. this is ***** ridiculous. If this was microsoft, there would be enough uproar on digg to bring down the internet. But as long as the logo at the top is in stupid colors, its ok.
      • jgreene777, on 02/24/2008, -0/+15Google's stuff works and they haven't repeatedly screwed me yet. When/if they get like MS, then I'll hate them too.
        • jabberwolf, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Actually they have and repeatedly been criticized for stacking the internet search in favor of their pocket book while claiming ignorance.
      • adooga, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3ms logo has stupid colours too you know
      • bbardlbradd, on 02/24/2008, -1/+5Microsoft and Google are a lot different my friend. What is the internet about? The internet is about information and intellectual freedom. Who is #1 on the internet? Who is the internet's mascot? Well, duh, it's Google.

        Google is free and they allow easy access to information around the world.
        Microsoft on the other hand sells what they make, and they lock down their information.

        My last point is, that Google has the power to make the internet useful to everyone. Do you have any idea how much information they hold, just from running their service? The statistical information that Google has on their lap is priceless to big business and humanity/sociological studies.
        • jabberwolf, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Your argument kinda works in favor of MS concerning privacy then !!
      • iiDLii, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1An unbeliever!

        Persecute! Kill the heretic!
      • knobtwiddler, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1i hate google as much as the next person but you have to admit, google software actually WORKS, whereas MS SUXXXXXX
    • EarlOfLade, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Ehh no, they will not.

      In my home country, this is highly illegal and they will NEVER be allowed to store such information. The data privacy laws are extremely though and nobody, not even regular companies can save customer data over longer time and they can not sell, trade or give away the information to anyone. Any company the wants to store personal data needs to get a license and it's highly regulated.

      See http://www.datatilsynet.no/templates/Page____194.a ...
      • Chompy, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1I've got news for you. My company designs EMR systems, we have accounts in Norway, and I've seen databases there with data going back 10 years. I'm talking about full clinical data and demographics for every patient: diagnosis, care plan, name, address, photograph, clinical status, etc.
        • EarlOfLade, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3Sure, as long as they have license to store the data, but they can not sell, give or in any way, transfer that data to anyone else.
          • Chompy, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1OK, but that's not what you said in the post I responded to.
  • smacksaw, on 02/24/2008, -10/+21Better Google than gov't or the insurance industry.
    • rsmith91, on 02/24/2008, -4/+3oops... sorry, I didn't mean to bury this comment - I clicked the wrong button by accident.
    • LightSpeed4, on 02/24/2008, -6/+9overabundance of google fanboys. this is ***** ridiculous. If this was microsoft, there would be enough uproar on digg to bring down the internet. But as long as the logo at the top is in stupid colors, its ok.
      • tempest212, on 02/24/2008, -3/+4Deja vu?
      • Ksg89, on 02/24/2008, -3/+3How many people do YOU know that have problems using Google's services and compare it with how many have problems with Microsoft's
    • emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Anything that gets used to the exclusion of all else will either eventually pay off the government to keep its place, or be run by the government for our "safety." Either way, monopolies in the USA are always involved in government.
  • jeffreyan12, on 02/24/2008, -7/+3what doesn't google know
  • ZephyrNinety, on 02/24/2008, -9/+4www.healthrecords.google.com?
  • Uranium118, on 02/24/2008, -10/+17Google's strength is that it seems friendly, even I use it as my homepage, but Google is also the worst when it comes to privacy. Try to google your name just to see what it finds. Everything everyone search is stored and probably sold to marketing companies. Having all the eggs in one basket isn't a good idea.
    • santaliqueur, on 02/24/2008, -3/+15Probably sold to marketing companies? Why not do some research and find out for yourself, before throwing Google under the bus.
    • darkNiGHTS, on 02/24/2008, -1/+14That's searching the web. It doesn't search your calender or your GMail or anything. I'm guessing this would be private too.
    • MiDri, on 02/24/2008, -2/+19Google is a search engine, among other things, if you have info about you available on the internet it will find it -- I'm sorry, thats the nature of public information -- if you don't want it on Google, keep it over the internet.
    • skyshock1, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9Nothing available through using Google isn't available through other means - public records (Freedom of Information Act), address listings, stuff YOU YOURSELF put on the Internet. Google is just a means for indexing all that info. that's already publicly available and putting it online. And many items that are public records it doesn't archive. Police records for instance will probably not show up when you search for an individual.
    • AlienMushroom, on 02/24/2008, -1/+8Looks like u got no idea how search engines work
    • StanMort, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Putting all of our eggs in one basket is a great idea, cause then you always know where your eggs are
    • jabberwolf, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I can imagine one day the Healthcare server accidentally being indexed by google servers and ALL your info being on the net to be "googled". That;s the worst case scenario! The best case scenario would be google selling your email name with certain conditions to pharmaceutical companies for $$!
  • mvisa, on 02/24/2008, -3/+18Microsoft has already done this with Microsoft Healthvault.
    • wastelander, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Yep.. sounds like another case of tit-for-tat between Google and Microsoft
    • jabberwolf, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah but Google's is gonna be so much better because... well.... it has google on it! And they know so much more about security ( rolls eyes).
  • chamberlanderic, on 02/24/2008, -4/+6it really is starting to get scary...the beast anyone ?
  • LMControl, on 02/24/2008, -3/+5Not mine they won't!
  • rsmith91, on 02/24/2008, -9/+4Google wanted people's DNA a few months ago for a similar project. It was apparently for educational 'research' or something. Like we're gonna believe that. Google can't be trusted with our information, especially not personal stuff like DNA and healthcare. They want to control every aspect of our lives.
  • jimbruno, on 02/24/2008, -3/+9Oh this will end well.
  • mctomy, on 02/24/2008, -4/+2a creative idea!
  • EXreaction, on 02/24/2008, -2/+10I don't know if I like the idea of Google storing it...but we definitely should have an online database doctors can access to get all of your information instantly. I would be willing to bet that health quality would go up quite a bit since doctors would be able to give you exactly what will work the best for you instead of just guessing.
    • emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'd be fine with that if there was some real security involved. I'd want to have an idea of just how secure it was though. IMO let patients be responsible for their records somewhat, in fact.. let them be a little more responsible for their health too. Getting sick of "let someone else keep track of everything and take care of me" mentality (not a personal attack, mind you -- just something I've been seeing that's bothering me). Heck, however, as long as we have a right to be "off the grid" so to speak and still can get seen...
      • EXreaction, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Yes, but keeping track of your own medical records is near impossible if you have an emergency. What happens when you get in an automotive accident or get bitten/stung by something you are allergic to. You won't be able to wake up, drive home, grab your records, and get back to the hospital, and your records may hold critical data about allergies to medication and other things that are extremely important.

        If your doctor has no records on you in a case like that and gives you something you are deathly allergic to, well, that would be a problem...
  • rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -7/+12Ask yourself the simplest question: Is an obscenely wealthy corporation's attempting to acquire every human being's medical record being done for altruistic reasons or profit? If you are unclear as to the real motivation you are either ignorant of how Google makes money or profoundly naive. Now consider Microsoft, WalMart and the former CEO of AOL are after the same personal information. You are very wise to realize 1984 is now 20 years in the past. The techniques used to manipulate you are only effective if you are lulled by a colorful logo and a public promise to "do no evil". Hitler and Stalin were minor league compared to Page and Brin.
    • sgiffy, on 02/24/2008, -4/+3So what if its profit. If that profit motive leads them to want to attract customers and those customers will only be customers if privacy safeguards are in place whats the big deal.

      Honestly I'll take the convenience of having easily accessible medical records over the small danger that my oh so secret health data will be accidentally released. And like everything from the internet to doctors in general, participation is and will likely always be voluntary.
      • AlienMushroom, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1check out a character called Smith in Matrix revolution.
      • locojones, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4You village idiots do realize that HIPPA doesn't apply to Google, right? So they are under no obligation whatsoever to protect your health records. ***** you people are stupid if you allow them to store your information.
        • emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Thank you, I'm too polite, but that's how I was feeling too. :D
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/24/2008, -3/+3Google lays out an altruistic front so people trust them. With public trust, they can pull off just about anything.
    • drjekelmrhyde, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Golf clap well done rsh28630
    • Jordan117, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3"Hitler and Stalin were minor league compared to Page and Brin."

      You have got to be ***** kidding me.
  • skyshock1, on 02/24/2008, -2/+4Way back when I worked as a consultant for doctor's offices who wanted to implement electronic medical records systems, I would have welcomed something like this. There needs to be a format that is consistent and can be read by ALL systems so a patient's records can be obtained more easily by the doctors' offices and hospitals. And as much as I despise Bush, back in the pre-9/11 days when he first assumed office, he was pushing legislation which would require exactly that. It's a damn shame he got side-tracked from that effort and subsequently the legislation was dropped.

    Looks like Google might be trying to pick up the slack? I certainly commend them because no one else has stepped up to the plate to address this.
    • emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2FYI -- all medical billing is done this way now anyways. Also, Bush has always been pro-government spying. He started his illegal spying before 9/11, in case that's been forgotten. Yeah, of COURSE he wanted full access to this kind of information. Never EVER trust someone who wants to take care of you. They don't, they just want power.
  • BlueNine, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4I think it is human nature to at least unconsciously overlook negative characteristics, of an individual or entity, when there are positive characteristics that one likes. However, one needs to keep an eye on that and not allow their fondness to cloud their objectivity. Corporations are not people, and corporations are not deserving of the respect or trust or admiration that we give to people that we genuinely know.
    We, as individuals and a society, really... REALLY... need to make every effort to maximize the compartmentalization of sensitive personal information. Putting patient health records under the control of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or the like is absolutely and totally insane. Many companies, including many companies that *already specialize in and limit themselves to* the maintenance of sensitive health records, can do the job.
  • spongebillyboi, on 02/24/2008, -7/+3Hi all! Lemme ease your mind. I am a nurse and I can tell you first hand that this WILL NEVER HAPPEN! I don't even know how such a rumor started. But shame on them for stirring people up. We have a law which Clinton passed called HIPPA. Health Information Privacy & Portability Act. Here's the reality part of the law. When a family member calls me and asks for info on one of my patients. Unless I recognize the voice of a person I know well I CANNOT give out info. For everyone single piece of info I gave out to the wrong person I can be hit with a 4,000 fine. That's 4,000 for a name of patient. Another 4,000 if disclosed which hospital a patient was discharged to. And so on. Congress is currently working to raise fines, & awareness. As well as healthcare institutions are constantly implementing new strategies to ensure we are complying with this law. So i can assure you all that this is nothing more than rumors to draw traffic to DIGG.com Rumors NEWS is getting big because people make money off advertising. So put up a news story on something false with an eye catching/shocking headline and BOOM.. MONEY MONEY MONEY STARTS FLOWIN IN.
    • sgiffy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3HIPPA allows for disclosure if a patient consents. If I want to put my medical records in a database I am more than free to do that.
    • mgromer, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Read the article, the information is only released with the patient's approval.
    • rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5I suggest you actually read the law you allege will protect you. It has a hole a mile wide permitting commercial entities to traffic medical data. Here's a clue: drugstores do it all the time (they even brag about it in their commercials), so do insurance carriers (although they are a tad more discreet). So will Google, Microsoft, WalMart, Revolution Healthcare, etc. Why else do you think they are in the business of acquiring patient records? Medical offices are somewhat inconvenienced by HIPPA; as well they should be since some of the biggest mouth flappers of all time work as doctors, nurses and office staff. And as far as your "recognizing the voice" to which you disclose information, any attorney would own you for that absurd defense.
  • hresult, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2I f%^& hate google
  • veronicaromm, on 02/24/2008, -6/+3There are HIPPA laws but Google seems to be above the law.
    • reb42, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2You clearly know nothing about HIPPA, this in no way violates any regulation in either title.
  • petrodollar, on 02/24/2008, -2/+12This is potentially very ***** in that it will make it harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. Doctors can demand that patients get Google accounts before being seen and can enter their findings in Google's database. Insurers can then demand that applicants submit their Google records for evaluation when deciding whether to offer coverage. Under the present system, a doctor who finds something wrong with you can keep his mouth shut and the insurer need never know. If the condition isn't glaring, you can pass the insurer's initial diagnostic screening, get coverage, and then go get your condition treated.

    Yeah, you could say that this makes it harder to screw the system, but the system is already screwing us so bad that I don't really mind. A guy I know had a policy for three decades that included a provision requiring the insurer to cover any condition. When he needed triple-bypass surgery at age 60 the insurer covered it but jacked up his premiums TEN-fold! He went from paying $180/mo to $1800/mo - this after paying premiums for THIRTY YEARS. Needless to say he can no longer afford insurance.
  • mgromer, on 02/24/2008, -2/+5For those that can't read:

    "The Google personal health record, he said, is a solution to that problem, among others. A person can approve the transfer of information on, say, medical conditions, allergies, medications and laboratory results from the clinic’s computers to a Google personal health record — a series of secure Web pages."

    No HIPPA issues.
    • rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3"secure web pages"... that is known as an oxymoron, idiot.
  • youssi45, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4...yet another nail in privacy's coffin.
    • reb42, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2I think you could see this from another perspective - assuming Google's fidelity in storage, the patient ultimately has more control over who sees his records... rather than that being left in the hands of hospitals, insurance companies and other healthcare providers.
  • Mrdudeperson, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2And next I'll end up trusting Apple with my social security number.
  • stutimandal, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4With such a database, the insurance companies will deny coverage to anyone except those who are mostly healthy.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3they already do. I have a friend who has MS. she can't get any coverage....well unless she pays the equiv of a down payment on a car.
      • CSharpSauce, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2which is still cheaper then if she didn't have insurance.... unfortuantely
  • EnderMB, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3Buried for *****!
  • cadmiumpaint, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3there are Bennefits...imagine if you are on vacation on the other side of the country and you get into a bad car accident. A doctor can have all your medical records just like that...maybe save your life, or avoid a medication screw up...i think i would support something like this if google wasn't attached to it. Google is just tooo evil wanting to control every piece of information in the world. I don't trust them.
  • seks03, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1As long Google and the Government dont team up like AT&T has I will continue to love Google and the great things they are doing.... this would be great, my records are all over the place cause of the different doctors I have had
  • siszam, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2This will end well.
  • Gabberwok, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1Better Google than Microsoft...
    • emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1At least Bil Gates donated to the Libertarian party, even if the organization is *****. heh.. but really, no. I don't give a rats ass who does this. Don't like it. Keep track of your own *****, let your doctor know, and if it is an emergency, carry a hard copy of anything that is really important with you. Don't just give it out -- keep it in a wallet or something. Or wear it on a bracelet. Crap, anything but making it public and assuming everyone should just lookout for your ass for you.
    • rsh28630, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Do you also have a preference regarding who buys your data when it's sold? For example, would you feel better if your bank declines you based on medical information when you apply for a home owner loan or are you more comfortable being denied a job because a prospective employer finds a value in your blood chemistry panel to be a statistical risk for the company's future premiums? Have no illusions about what will be done with your data once you upload it.
      • Gabberwok, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1All medical records are slowly getting converted to electronic formats already, and if you think hospitals are capable of keeping their IT systems secure you are seriously kidding yourself. Most are hemorrhaging money left and right and only care about computer security as much as they are required to by law and no more. Clearly Google and Microsoft plan on monetizing these services somehow, but the only way your information would be any safer in a hospital than with one of these companies (where I would hope they are competent at protecting their own data) is if the hospital loses your records. Which, I might add, is not a remote possibility.
    • jabberwolf, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1What makes google any better? They dont exactly have a good record of well... using records for their own cash flow. Seems more likely them selling your records to companies for ad profits rather than MS would.
  • deathbyspatula, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5*types in name of ex in Google Health*
    ... Ah, so that's where I got that rash from.
    • CSharpSauce, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1except that won't be possible due to government regulations...
  • samby, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0That story, really had, the most commas, ever.
  • nsanidy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...
    too far Google?
  • CSharpSauce, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Seems to me, like its just one more company with peoples information (exception being that this company will have it tied to you... which means they'll have to deal with the uber tight government regulations.) For those people who are afraid of google becoming to powerful, they should realize there are several corporations out there who are mining through your records already (granted those records are NOT tied to you..) the first company off the top of my head is Ingenix.
  • benwright214, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Maybe patients can use contract law to enhance the privacy of their health records. http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/contract ...
  • daizy82683, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0soilent green is people!
  • ajaar, on 02/29/2008, -1/+0Google health rocks
  • dudley9, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0http://www.genericsmed.com/
    http://www.generics.ws/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.