Yesteday Google announced that it was offering a solution for electronic medical records. Click here.

Is this truly a good thing? Is it possible that Google could be solving this problem that experts have been struggling with for so long?

Chris,

I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but it sounds real good.  But, still all the technology in the world still has to funnel down to doctor/patient relationship including EMRs . Doctors are resistant to electronic medical records for a number of reasons, but the medical record itself basically belongs to the patient. Then, maybe Google might have something innovative for a healthcare system that is stuck in neutral.  EMRs are necessary for the future and welfare of medicine today. But, the resistance from  physicians is painful and slow.The fact that Google is offering a solution is promising.  HIPPA and sometype of disclaimer from the patient has to be addressed.

Johnny

If any major tech company is capable of solving the problem of managing, organizing, and presenting complex medical information on the web, it's Google.  As a concept, I think a third party mediator of information between provider and patient has the effect of empowering the consumer over more traditional medical records.  The risk, as I see it, is that the product is "free" to individual users, which means that Google's customer is not the one entrusting the company with highly sensitive and private data but the advertisers who pay for the right put their product on the users screen.  I'd prefer that that a company risk loosing my business if they do something wrong rather than a company risk loosing the business of Pfizer if they don't crack the door open a little further on my private health information.  Though Google has a pretty good reputation for protecting consumer privacy, who knows what pressures advertisers will exact in the future. - Steve

 Hmm...Is Google Health truly a good thing?...

Here's my take (for what it's worth) -- Anything that draws attention to the fact that the health care sector is way, way, way behind almost every other industry in terms of its adoption of information technology is probably an ok thing in the short term.  And the idea is right -- a single, "secure" [and because it's Google] uber-accessible and portable "place" where a person can store all of his or her own medical information/personal health history...plus, I think there are some interesting potential patient education opportunities that could come of this, considering the record is linked to the world's largest internet search engine...[or alternatively this could just be a way of creating more cyber-chrondriacs..] 

But, in addition to Steve's points, I have many issues with the way this "solution" is being presented by Google, to name a few:

First, not that I don't trust and believe in an empowered consumer, BUT to take advantage of this system, an individual has to either hand-enter or "import" his or her own medical history...Google is relying on non-medical people to enter technical medical information and/or to figure out how to "import" something -- couldn't that potentially negate one of the perceived values of the electronic health record -- having accurate, up to date patient data/information?...and isn't the technology itself going to be a substantial barrier for the everyday person?

Second, I see health information technology (including electronic health records and personal health records) as tools to improve the quality and efficiency of provided health care.  One of the most powerful, yet still largely untapped functions of a good electronic health record -- is being able to look at it, or at least important elements of it, in the context of many other (even an entire sub-population's) health records.  Point of care information is a good thing -- but being able to know how many of my diabetics haven't had an eye exam in the past year, and then being able to perform some targeted outreach to them to get them in for the recommended care is even better...it results ultimately in an improvement in the quality of care for larger numbers!...but Google Health isn't going to help with that...

And lastly, if I'm a doc and my practice already has an electronic health record (I know...very few do..), and a new patient presents me with their Google Health record (cool right?), I'm still going to have to enter that person's information in my system as their care provider...there's no apparent, seamless way for the person to "export" their record from Google Health into my EHR (even if they could figure it out) -- so now the effort to centralize information (a good thing) has led to further decentralization and ultimately further fragementation of the health care delivery system.  And I'm somewhat hesitant to touch the health record ownership issue -- but what the heck -- In theory I agree with Johnny, the patient owns his or her health record, but in practice I'd argue that providers take quite a bit of ownership over their patients' charts...

Which leads me to probably my biggest, longer-term issue with Google Health -- and actually not just Google Health, but the market's control on US health care in the first place.  I would argue that Google isn't really solving any structural/systemic issues with Google Health.  They're giving the patient/consumer the ability to consolidate their own information.  But, it's the health care providers who are buying and implementing any one of over 1000 EHR products available on the market...and each of those systems competes against the other 1000, and certainly not going to any trouble to make sure their products can communicate or share data across/between systems...so, I think in the long-run things are worse-off....patients aren't really getting the continuity of care they need/deserve, health care providers aren't able to access the information they need to make good decisions because for them, it still resides in 10 different places (including now GoogleHealth), and ultimately the system becomes more and more fragmented. 

Short of a single-payer and corresponding standardized, national electronic health record, I think if Google or Microsoft really wanted to do something worthwhile -- they'd first give every provider the money to implement an EHR (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has so much $$), then become the "integrator" (check out the recent issue of Health Affairs re: the IHI's Triple Aim by the way)..they'd use their tech-savvy to develop an algorithm to uniquely identify individuals, come up with a way for each of those 1000 disparate systems to seamlessly communicate with each other, then develop a consolidated view of a patient's record and information which would be secure and accessible to obviously the patient and their PCP, but also if necessary, could be accessed at the local hospital, by specialists, public health, and the patient's family -- and of course in addition, the data would be available at the population level, quality/efficiency go up, system costs go down (reduced duplication of services and all that stuff), less fragmentation, and better health care in the US. 

Dan,

You are right on, but eventfully the consumer has to step up and assume some ownership to health care in some form or the other. But you are right about the consumer and we should not hold out breaths waiting until they get the memo.

But, as we enter into the technological  market place of an Electronic Heathcare Record there will be many things that we must consider. Some of the choices will have very positive impacts and benefits and some of our choices can and will impact the future negatively if not though out carefully.  EHR or EMR if implemented today will be incomplete if installed.  You have to continuely assess the level of frustration, monitor productivity, measure patient cycle times, re-evaluate workflows, assess learning curve, and determine whether the EMS is meeting any established goals. 

Again we come to the question if a single-payer system maybe the only viable answer.  And Google and Microsoft can pick up the cost.

I have actually found a great resource in using the <a href="http://www.drfirst.com/">emr system</a> at http://www.drfirst.com. The convenience and the reliability have been great so far in addition to the fact that it limits errors caused by misinterpreted data. I recommend trying the free demo and deciding for oneself.