By now, I am sure you’ve all heard that Google Health will cease accepting new data at the end of this year. And, by 2013, you will had to migrate it to another site (Microsoft HealthVault is building links to let you do that seamlessly.)
Why is Google killing this program- after only 3+ years of existence (it started in 2008)? One of the biggest reasons is that Google expected to sign up tons of insurance companies and medical institutions as partners. (It did sign CVS, but failed to entice most of the other “big boys”.)
The second reason is that only 7% of all Americans maintain a personal health care record (PHR). We don’t know which PHR these folks have chosen, but it’s our guess that the bulk have been onto the Kaiser system, with Microsoft way ahead of Google.
(There’s a possible third reason- Larry Page, co-founder of Google, is back in the saddle. While Eric Schmidt may have liked this idea, it was not among Larry’s favorites. And, Google Health’s not making money doesn’t help.)
Google Health required us to input data only using data types it accepted. That meant new apps had to deliberately incorporate Google’s standards to let us or clinicians enter healthcare data. By comparison, Microsoft’s (MS) HealthVault was not as rigid- and many “user-defined” data could be entered automatically. This meant physicians and institutions could send data or transfer files into the MS data bank with ease.
(Note: While not the subject of this post, the sharing of data among users and practitioners is absolutely critical. Proprietary data choices are the problem. Don’t think so? Consider the railroad issue until the width (gauge) of the tracks was standardized across the US in 1886. No train from one area could be used in another area.)
But, really the biggest problem for Google was that the healthcare space is parochial. To succeed in this space, one must understand both healthcare AND consumer preferences. Patients have little desire to enter medical data, on the whole. They want the data available to see what it can do for them. They want systems to enable easier appointments, to save them money, to get automatic drug refills. None of these were offered via Google Health.
The systems must integrate with physician/medical center electronic health care records or the patient’s data will never find its way into the PHR (because of consumer reluctance to entering their own data). And, providers want the data in their own systems to insure patient loyalty.
Couple this with the “pay for service” healthcare system and you have a recipe for disaster. Patient interactions are typically only reimbursed if they are face-to-face (i.e., not via the internet). This is in spite of the fact that some 50 to 70% of patient interactions could be successfully effected over the internet. And, any PHR must help patients get lab results, interact with insurance companies, make appointments or request prescription refills.
This is why Kaiser’s patient portal is still king of the roost. It provides clinical data, educational materials, appointment requests, and drug refills. This is why almost 60% of the Kaiser family maintains a PHR. Of course, you have to be a Kaiser patient to utilize it.
Note: we did discuss a PHR for chronic diseases earlier. It is still in beta, but provides some valuable choices, not available elsewhere.
This post is right up my alley. I work as an EHR IT analyst. Many of the big reference and diagnostic testing labs are also creating apps and mobile products for consumers to receive their patient data electronically. See http://mygazelleapp.com/
Hi, Traci:
I have been involved in the development of EHR and EMR for a while (and was part of a committee that developed directives for these apps). I am familiar with the Quest product- as well as MS’s HealthVault (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/healthvault/) and the other one mentioned in my article (http://www.ibiomed.me/). From what I’ve seen, Quest’s will wed us to their testing- I am not sure that is how I would want my data restricted. But, unfortunately, this segment is still in its infancy.
Thanks for your addition- and for reminding me to include the Quest product.
Roy
While working in the ER of a large acute care hospital, I saw first hand what poor medical historians the general public really is: many people could not tell me the name of their physician, let alone the names of meds, dosages, or diagnosis.
When we as individuals don’t take responsibility for knowing this information, we rely on emergency staff to be able to contact our physician’s office in an emergency. But outside of normal office hours — and sometimes during office hours in a busy clinic — it can be nearly impossible to obtain this information in a timely manner. Most people think it can’t matter that much, but it can be the difference between life and death. In fact, a friend of mine forgot to tell the ER staff about a medication that she was taking and had they chosen a different pain killer to give her, she would have died.
In world where we seek medical services from a number of different providers — and in many different locations — having one, accessible health record will mean better care and fewer doctor mistakes. I hope that some day a company figures out how to create a PHR system that works for providers and patients AND convinces the general public to use it.
Fantastic additions, Lesa.
You are absolutely correct!
One would think that as our children (not necessarily biological, society’s) age, they will be ready and able to take this control. They are the texting generation, and, as such, should be very adept at providing this information. Although, if the PHR fails to have an intelligent spell-check, much of that information may be lost to clinicians due to urban vernacular, grammar, and the like.
One can only hope!
Roy