5 ms·

Surely they could have come up with a less alarmist headline for what seems like a much needed initiative in healthcare innovation. But that's the case for all

Surely they could have come up with a less alarmist headline for what seems like a much needed initiative in healthcare innovation. But that's the case for all tech coverage nowadays.

givinguflac 7y ago
You're blind if you think this is for "healthcare innovation". It's for bolstering what they know about users for advertising, and to combine with their recent Fitbit purchase. How could you possibly still view Google as an innocent company with everyone's best interests at heart?
- rickncliff 7y ago
  They employ a lot of talented people and they are among the few organizations that have the resources and will to actually solve these intricate problems, so more power to them as far as I'm concerned.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    Tautologically, you've described every organization in the health tech space. Having a surveillance company secretly start transacting patient health information for their own profit isn't a solution in search of any problem I want solved.
  - givinguflac 7y ago
    What problem? Please tell me, what is this "solving" besides providing user data without consent to google?
- stevenhuang 7y ago
  I would examine your biases to see if they are not clouding your judgment and ability to see the other side. Without restraint, these efforts will undeniably bolster their ability to conduct targeted advertisements, which is bad. Hopefully regulation and consumer backlash will take care of that. But you cannot deny the amount of good we stand to gain from an advanced electronic health system. The insights that can be generated from cross correlation of all patient data, the amount of preventative measures that can be taken from detecting problems before they become bigger problems... The benefits far outweigh the negatives. It's unthinkable to have all this data and NOT attempt to find insights in them.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - givinguflac 7y ago
    There is no circumstance where you can reasonably state the positives outweigh the negatives. You are conflating a vague improved digital health system, with google blatantly gaining access to millions of people’s health data without consent. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I’m all for people opting in, but to have no say over random google employees accessing my health data? There’s no way that’s a positive. Perhaps check your own biases? Thanks
  - justinclift 7y ago
    > But you cannot deny the amount of good we stand to gain from an advanced electronic health system. Not one that has anything to do with Google though.
AlexandrB 7y ago
The headline is not alarming enough. This is being done without proper consent from patients and the healthcare "innovation" is likely to be inaccessible to many of those same patients due to how unaffordable health care (including preventative care) is in the US. Edit: It basically doesn't matter what procedure Google's algorithm says you should get. If your insurance doesn't want to cover it, you're not getting it.
- rickncliff 7y ago
  Evidently "consent" isn't lawfully required. The hope is that any breakthrough might lower healthcare costs, and in the worst case scenario at least some patients might benefit which is still a win.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > Evidently "consent" isn't lawfully required. Ethics != law. Just because it's lawful doesn't mean it's ethical or that we shouldn't be outraged. Edit: > The hope is that any breakthrough might lower healthcare costs Perhaps then Google should instead lobby hard for single-payer. Most countries with a single-payer systems have lower health care costs than the US. It's a proven solution that will lower costs, not a "hope".
- sukilot 7y ago
  Is it your claim that only a trivial portion of the $billions in healthcare spending is being spent on healthcare for the average insured people?
- noelsusman 7y ago
  Those forms you sign when you go to the doctor include consent to transmit your data to third parties as allowed under HIPAA regulations.
gerash 7y ago
No, the health care situation in US is just perfect. Don't you try to do anything there big bad tech. companies. All they are going to spend their budget on is to personally identify people with sensitive health issues (eg. erectile dsyfunction) and serve them more ads. Sad! /s
falcolas 7y ago
Does a good system have the potential to be good for patients? Sure. Will Google do that? Probably not. There's no incentive for them to improve health care for the patients; there's no profit. There is, however, profit in ads, and in increasing insurance margins for insurers and those funding insurance. I'd like to think that Google is concerned about more than just profit, but they prove again (censored search for China) and again (YouTube policy changes) and again that they are not. Profit rules Google's decisions. And that is why there's such backlash against Google getting this data. Because the chances of anything good for us as patients is slim to non-existent.
- rickncliff 7y ago
  "such backlash"? you just heard about it. And there is nothing wrong about monetary profit as motivation, the pursuit of profits has elevated the living standards of billions around the world saving countless lives.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    The pure pursuit of profit has also created sweatshops, blood diamonds, monopolies (and increased consumer costs), and union busting. Profit itself is a dangerous motivation. Profit tempered by morals is what will improve lives. Google is showing that their drive for profits is not being tempered by morals.
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  > There's no incentive for them to improve health care for the patients The healthcare systems they are collaborating with (e.g. Mayo) are strongly motivated to improve health of their patients, particularly in capitated models like accountable care organizations. Mayo is actually pretty famous for adopting the ACO model. Note the author on this article (1) from Mayo Clinic Proceedings is by David Shulkin, who went on to become the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. You may also be interested to know Ascension is another ACO (2). So why would an ACO be motivated to work with Google? Because they know reducing diagnostic variance is almost certainly identical to improving quality of diagnosis, which will reduce poor outcomes and reduce malpractice, cost of overtreatment, cost of undertreatment, and so on. (1) https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00565-4/abstract https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)... (2) https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/acos-to-know-2019.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/acos-to-know-2019.html

Surely they could have come up with a less alarmist headline for what seems like a much needed initiative in healthcare innovation. But that's the case for all tech coverage nowadays.

givinguflac 7y ago

You're blind if you think this is for "healthcare innovation". It's for bolstering what they know about users for advertising, and to combine with their recent Fitbit purchase. How could you possibly still view Google as an innocent company with everyone's best interests at heart?

rickncliff 7y ago
They employ a lot of talented people and they are among the few organizations that have the resources and will to actually solve these intricate problems, so more power to them as far as I'm concerned.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  Tautologically, you've described every organization in the health tech space. Having a surveillance company secretly start transacting patient health information for their own profit isn't a solution in search of any problem I want solved.
- givinguflac 7y ago
  What problem? Please tell me, what is this "solving" besides providing user data without consent to google?
stevenhuang 7y ago
I would examine your biases to see if they are not clouding your judgment and ability to see the other side. Without restraint, these efforts will undeniably bolster their ability to conduct targeted advertisements, which is bad. Hopefully regulation and consumer backlash will take care of that. But you cannot deny the amount of good we stand to gain from an advanced electronic health system. The insights that can be generated from cross correlation of all patient data, the amount of preventative measures that can be taken from detecting problems before they become bigger problems... The benefits far outweigh the negatives. It's unthinkable to have all this data and NOT attempt to find insights in them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- givinguflac 7y ago
  There is no circumstance where you can reasonably state the positives outweigh the negatives. You are conflating a vague improved digital health system, with google blatantly gaining access to millions of people’s health data without consent. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I’m all for people opting in, but to have no say over random google employees accessing my health data? There’s no way that’s a positive. Perhaps check your own biases? Thanks
- justinclift 7y ago
  > But you cannot deny the amount of good we stand to gain from an advanced electronic health system. Not one that has anything to do with Google though.

AlexandrB 7y ago

The headline is not alarming enough. This is being done without proper consent from patients and the healthcare "innovation" is likely to be inaccessible to many of those same patients due to how unaffordable health care (including preventative care) is in the US. Edit: It basically doesn't matter what procedure Google's algorithm says you should get. If your insurance doesn't want to cover it, you're not getting it.

rickncliff 7y ago
Evidently "consent" isn't lawfully required. The hope is that any breakthrough might lower healthcare costs, and in the worst case scenario at least some patients might benefit which is still a win.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > Evidently "consent" isn't lawfully required. Ethics != law. Just because it's lawful doesn't mean it's ethical or that we shouldn't be outraged. Edit: > The hope is that any breakthrough might lower healthcare costs Perhaps then Google should instead lobby hard for single-payer. Most countries with a single-payer systems have lower health care costs than the US. It's a proven solution that will lower costs, not a "hope".
sukilot 7y ago
Is it your claim that only a trivial portion of the $billions in healthcare spending is being spent on healthcare for the average insured people?
noelsusman 7y ago
Those forms you sign when you go to the doctor include consent to transmit your data to third parties as allowed under HIPAA regulations.

gerash 7y ago

No, the health care situation in US is just perfect. Don't you try to do anything there big bad tech. companies. All they are going to spend their budget on is to personally identify people with sensitive health issues (eg. erectile dsyfunction) and serve them more ads. Sad! /s

falcolas 7y ago

Does a good system have the potential to be good for patients? Sure. Will Google do that? Probably not. There's no incentive for them to improve health care for the patients; there's no profit. There is, however, profit in ads, and in increasing insurance margins for insurers and those funding insurance. I'd like to think that Google is concerned about more than just profit, but they prove again (censored search for China) and again (YouTube policy changes) and again that they are not. Profit rules Google's decisions. And that is why there's such backlash against Google getting this data. Because the chances of anything good for us as patients is slim to non-existent.

rickncliff 7y ago
"such backlash"? you just heard about it. And there is nothing wrong about monetary profit as motivation, the pursuit of profits has elevated the living standards of billions around the world saving countless lives.
- falcolas 7y ago
  The pure pursuit of profit has also created sweatshops, blood diamonds, monopolies (and increased consumer costs), and union busting. Profit itself is a dangerous motivation. Profit tempered by morals is what will improve lives. Google is showing that their drive for profits is not being tempered by morals.
killjoywashere 7y ago
> There's no incentive for them to improve health care for the patients The healthcare systems they are collaborating with (e.g. Mayo) are strongly motivated to improve health of their patients, particularly in capitated models like accountable care organizations. Mayo is actually pretty famous for adopting the ACO model. Note the author on this article (1) from Mayo Clinic Proceedings is by David Shulkin, who went on to become the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. You may also be interested to know Ascension is another ACO (2). So why would an ACO be motivated to work with Google? Because they know reducing diagnostic variance is almost certainly identical to improving quality of diagnosis, which will reduce poor outcomes and reduce malpractice, cost of overtreatment, cost of undertreatment, and so on. (1) https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00565-4/abstract https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)... (2) https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/acos-to-know-2019.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/acos-to-know-2019.html