5 ms·

Didn't they try to do this as Google Health > 10 years ago?

turnerc 6y ago
They did and retired it 4 years later saying they couldn't turn "limited usage into widespread adoption in the daily health routines of millions of people"[0]. People didn't like the idea then, and I'm not sure they will adopt it this time around... [0] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/update-on-google-health-and-google.html#Blog1:~:text=But%20we%20haven%E2%80%99t%20found%20a%20way,health%20routines%20of%20millions%20of%20people https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/update-on-google-hea...
prepend 6y ago
Yes, it was ok and annoying when they shut it down because all the health records were proprietary so a huge pain to move stuff over. I wonder if the product managers know that Google tried this. I’m not sure I’d ever trust Google again with a health record. Also since they can de-identify and advertise based on health condition across all of Google that’s a privacy nightmare for me. And I think since a health record where you enter your data isn’t HIPAA protected, then who knows what they’ll do with the data.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  "all the health records were proprietary" is, as I understand it, the description of the broad status quo. There's no standard format, and many functionally-ok versions running at thousands of different hospitals, so it's apparently nigh impossible to solve the problem. See the other comments about everyone trying this and failing... It's honestly the sort of thing where you should have a standard created by an independent group designing a standard, which is then implemented by the government (handling storage and release of records to local providers).
  - clairity 6y ago
    > “There's no standard format, and many functionally-ok versions running at thousands of different hospitals, so it's apparently nigh impossible to solve the problem.” this is actually the perfect breeding ground for a highly serviceable solution. thousands of at-bats to solve a thorny complicated problem. the challenge is bringing that whole breadth of knowledge to bear on said standards-making process. inter-/intra-group politics often gets in the way, but that is also solvable with good leadership and trust-making processes.
    - sdenton4 6y ago
      That thought process is why so many have said that it's a perfect problem to work on. https://youtu.be/Po4adxJxqZk https://youtu.be/Po4adxJxqZk
giobox 6y ago
I feel like every Google sized entity in the computer industry has tried to solve this problem over the past 30 years. Microsoft spent ages at it too: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HealthVault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HealthVault Apple have been trying similar with the Health app too I'd argue, even if it's not nearly as integrated with medical records yet. Why does no one ever succeed?
- pydry 6y ago
  Maybe because nobody trusts any of them. I hate to say it (because it makes me groan) but I really think a trustless blockchain based solution would work best where medical professionals/researchers require active consent before pulling your records, a trustless form of anonymization/pseudonymization is built into the platform and an immutable record of every query made and why is held forever.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    Wouldn't a blockchain make you vulnerable to a 51% attack? Imagine someone now has access to most people's health data - I'd imagine that's worth billions even on the black market.
    - pydry 6y ago
      You're assuming a mining based system. I don't think it would be a good idea to run this on Ethereum (for instance) at all.
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        I am admittedly not an expert on blockchain. So without mining, what makes this different from just having a voting mechanism where you need a majority?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Many comments here are saying that the problem is lack of trust of the tech entities. I disagree - I think the problem is capture and rent-seeking. Hospitals and service providers in America have no incentive to do anything that would reduce switching costs and increase the quality of care that you get if you do switch. Moreover, since this is a low-information landscape with respect to both pricing and outcomes, consumers have little way of differentiating and thus service providers also have less incentive to adopt practices that improve outcomes.

They did and retired it 4 years later saying they couldn't turn "limited usage into widespread adoption in the daily health routines of millions of people"[0]. People didn't like the idea then, and I'm not sure they will adopt it this time around... [0] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/update-on-google-health-and-google.html#Blog1:~:text=But%20we%20haven%E2%80%99t%20found%20a%20way,health%20routines%20of%20millions%20of%20people https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/update-on-google-hea...

prepend 6y ago

Yes, it was ok and annoying when they shut it down because all the health records were proprietary so a huge pain to move stuff over. I wonder if the product managers know that Google tried this. I’m not sure I’d ever trust Google again with a health record. Also since they can de-identify and advertise based on health condition across all of Google that’s a privacy nightmare for me. And I think since a health record where you enter your data isn’t HIPAA protected, then who knows what they’ll do with the data.

sdenton4 6y ago
"all the health records were proprietary" is, as I understand it, the description of the broad status quo. There's no standard format, and many functionally-ok versions running at thousands of different hospitals, so it's apparently nigh impossible to solve the problem. See the other comments about everyone trying this and failing... It's honestly the sort of thing where you should have a standard created by an independent group designing a standard, which is then implemented by the government (handling storage and release of records to local providers).
- clairity 6y ago
  > “There's no standard format, and many functionally-ok versions running at thousands of different hospitals, so it's apparently nigh impossible to solve the problem.” this is actually the perfect breeding ground for a highly serviceable solution. thousands of at-bats to solve a thorny complicated problem. the challenge is bringing that whole breadth of knowledge to bear on said standards-making process. inter-/intra-group politics often gets in the way, but that is also solvable with good leadership and trust-making processes.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    That thought process is why so many have said that it's a perfect problem to work on. https://youtu.be/Po4adxJxqZk https://youtu.be/Po4adxJxqZk

giobox 6y ago

I feel like every Google sized entity in the computer industry has tried to solve this problem over the past 30 years. Microsoft spent ages at it too: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HealthVault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HealthVault Apple have been trying similar with the Health app too I'd argue, even if it's not nearly as integrated with medical records yet. Why does no one ever succeed?

pydry 6y ago
Maybe because nobody trusts any of them. I hate to say it (because it makes me groan) but I really think a trustless blockchain based solution would work best where medical professionals/researchers require active consent before pulling your records, a trustless form of anonymization/pseudonymization is built into the platform and an immutable record of every query made and why is held forever.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Wouldn't a blockchain make you vulnerable to a 51% attack? Imagine someone now has access to most people's health data - I'd imagine that's worth billions even on the black market.
  - pydry 6y ago
    You're assuming a mining based system. I don't think it would be a good idea to run this on Ethereum (for instance) at all.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      I am admittedly not an expert on blockchain. So without mining, what makes this different from just having a voting mechanism where you need a majority?
whimsicalism 6y ago
Many comments here are saying that the problem is lack of trust of the tech entities. I disagree - I think the problem is capture and rent-seeking. Hospitals and service providers in America have no incentive to do anything that would reduce switching costs and increase the quality of care that you get if you do switch. Moreover, since this is a low-information landscape with respect to both pricing and outcomes, consumers have little way of differentiating and thus service providers also have less incentive to adopt practices that improve outcomes.