Comments on: “In God We Trust” is NOT an Option for Your PHR: 5 Responses to the Google Health Trust Issue http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/ Chronic Disease Management • Technology • Strategy • Issues and Trends Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:15:42 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Mike D. http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-12085 Mike D. Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:23:56 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-12085 Hey Vince, apparently this post is still popular because I stumbled upon it despite it being from 2007. You know on a somewhat related note, here in Los Angeles a lot of people are in an uproar right now over Google's system being used to manage police records, too. For this and for the medical, I think they may be better off changing the name and making a subsidiary for it. I think by operating under the Google name a lot of people either trust it or distrust it. I am a cosmetic surgeon and my partner is totally against changing our PHR system. I read a couple comments on a plastic surgery forum about patients who also don't like the idea of their records being stored on servers elsewhere. Most recently, I'm not sure if you've read about how many people inappropriately read Michael Jackson's death certificate before it was public. While, I can tell you here in Beverly Hills I've received comments from those in the public eye about their concern about keeping a lid on their surgical records of their rhinoplasty, breast implants, or whatever other "secret" they have that they want to keep hidden. By storing these patients outside my practice on a server, such as GH, I know many of them won't like the idea of it, even if it is secure. Because perceived peace of mind is more important than actual reality... at least that's what I've found with patients. Mike Hey Vince, apparently this post is still popular because I stumbled upon it despite it being from 2007. You know on a somewhat related note, here in Los Angeles a lot of people are in an uproar right now over Google’s system being used to manage police records, too. For this and for the medical, I think they may be better off changing the name and making a subsidiary for it. I think by operating under the Google name a lot of people either trust it or distrust it. I am a cosmetic surgeon and my partner is totally against changing our PHR system. I read a couple comments on a plastic surgery forum about patients who also don’t like the idea of their records being stored on servers elsewhere.

Most recently, I’m not sure if you’ve read about how many people inappropriately read Michael Jackson’s death certificate before it was public. While, I can tell you here in Beverly Hills I’ve received comments from those in the public eye about their concern about keeping a lid on their surgical records of their rhinoplasty, breast implants, or whatever other “secret” they have that they want to keep hidden. By storing these patients outside my practice on a server, such as GH, I know many of them won’t like the idea of it, even if it is secure. Because perceived peace of mind is more important than actual reality… at least that’s what I’ve found with patients.

Mike

]]> By: L.C. Nguyen http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-5366 L.C. Nguyen Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:29:25 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-5366 Hello Vince, I disagree with your quote "providers have no incentive to offer free PHR." As a group of dedicated physicians, we have assigned 20 IT members and few physician executives to develop a flexible PHR with built in web diagnosis and treatment. These are design to interface with any CCHIT certified EMR using HL7, CDA, CCD, etc. Our goal is for future disease management and home health. Research has been done in last 2 years, including SWOT analysis. We have not publically announced yet, but hope you will hear more about us in 2008. Have been reading your quote and admire your analysis and inspiration. We are hoping Google will launch their PHR before ours. We would learn more from the best. Agree with your A+ assessment of HV :-) LCN Hello Vince,

I disagree with your quote “providers have no incentive to offer free PHR.” As a group of dedicated physicians, we have assigned 20 IT members and few physician executives to develop a flexible PHR with built in web diagnosis and treatment. These are design to interface with any CCHIT certified EMR using HL7, CDA, CCD, etc. Our goal is for future disease management and home health. Research has been done in last 2 years, including SWOT analysis. We have not publically announced yet, but hope you will hear more about us in 2008.

Have been reading your quote and admire your analysis and inspiration. We are hoping Google will launch their PHR before ours. We would learn more from the best.

Agree with your A+ assessment of HV :-)

LCN

]]> By: ICTconsequences » Blog Archive » Personal Health Record discussions http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-3115 ICTconsequences » Blog Archive » Personal Health Record discussions Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:54:28 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-3115 [...] he did with Google’s PHR, talking even about trust issues, Vince Kuraitis analyzes Microsoft’s HealthVault and four misconception about it: [...] [...] he did with Google’s PHR, talking even about trust issues, Vince Kuraitis analyzes Microsoft’s HealthVault and four misconception about it: [...]

]]> By: C.F.SMITH http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-1336 C.F.SMITH Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:57:17 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-1336 Without question Google already has an answer to the Trust issue. It is already being implemented into their platform. You will learn more by going to www.y-t-c.com There is a payoff for the consumer secondary to a trusted intermediary with a $1M insurance indemnity for breach of information. Plus, the consumer will be able to generate revenues from post marketing pharmaceutical surveys, and other innovative revenue generators for the consumer. Far better than MacDonalds bingo I assure you. My name is C.F.SMITH. Without question Google already has an answer to the Trust issue. It is already being implemented into their platform. You will learn more by going to http://www.y-t-c.com There is a payoff for the consumer secondary to a trusted intermediary with a $1M insurance indemnity for breach of information. Plus, the consumer will be able to generate revenues from post marketing pharmaceutical surveys, and other innovative revenue generators for the consumer. Far better than MacDonalds bingo I assure you.
My name is C.F.SMITH.

]]> By: Dan Cramer http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-892 Dan Cramer Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:35:29 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-892 Of all the companies out there Google is probably in the best position to evoke this level of trust. If you think about all of the information that you already entrust with Google it isn't much of a leap to think of them having more. If you use the Google applications then they already know your browsing habits, anything you store in your email and your office documents. What's one more piece of your life? Isn't Google's mandate to 'do no evil' enough to calm all fears? Of all the companies out there Google is probably in the best position to evoke this level of trust. If you think about all of the information that you already entrust with Google it isn’t much of a leap to think of them having more.

If you use the Google applications then they already know your browsing habits, anything you store in your email and your office documents. What’s one more piece of your life? Isn’t Google’s mandate to ‘do no evil’ enough to calm all fears?

]]> By: Adrian Blakey http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-548 Adrian Blakey Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:41:16 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-548 The trust issue could be solved if Google, or indeed any other PHR provider, adopted a custodian/broker model. Their PHR implementation would need to be a "certifiably secure" personal "lock-box" over which the owner had complete control and to which there was no master key or back door. By identifying the owner and making access secure and controlled by the owner (URL based user centric identity management), the owner of the PHI could selectively disclose their personal information to interested sellers, and create a reverse commerce model. The custodian could monetize the relationship by brokering the contact, between the PHI owner (consumer) and provider. The trust issue could be solved if Google, or indeed any other PHR provider, adopted a custodian/broker model.

Their PHR implementation would need to be a “certifiably secure” personal “lock-box” over which the owner had complete control and to which there was no master key or back door.

By identifying the owner and making access secure and controlled by the owner (URL based user centric identity management), the owner of the PHI could selectively disclose their personal information to interested sellers, and create a reverse commerce model.

The custodian could monetize the relationship by brokering the contact, between the PHI owner (consumer) and provider.

]]> By: John MacRitchie http://e-CareManagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-456 John MacRitchie Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:55:27 +0000 http://e-caremanagement.com/in-god-we-trust-is-not-an-option-for-your-phr-5-responses-to-the-google-health-trust-issue/#comment-456 I am not too concerned about privacy and public exposure risks of the PHR data. If I trust my banks' systems for transactions, surely a PHR system can be as or more secure. However, a bigger question may be whether there is "professional trust" of the data For a clinician to rely on the data to make medical decisions, they will have to trust the sources of the data (even me if I self-report) as well as the technical issues around its security in the system. How can this level of trust be addressed in a PHR system? I am not too concerned about privacy and public exposure risks of the PHR data. If I trust my banks’ systems for transactions, surely a PHR system can be as or more secure.

However, a bigger question may be whether there is “professional trust” of the data

For a clinician to rely on the data to make medical decisions, they will have to trust the sources of the data (even me if I self-report) as well as the technical issues around its security in the system.

How can this level of trust be addressed in a PHR system?

]]>