Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google to Offer Online Personal Health Records

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the google-your-liver-profile dept.

Google 242

hhavensteincw writes "Less than two weeks after Microsoft announced plans to offer personal health records, Google announced today that it plans to offer online personal health records to help patients tote and store their own x-rays and other health data. Google made the announcement Wednesday at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco."

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

MS Pulled an apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21020951)

And stole google's idea, but announced it before google had a chance!

Re:MS Pulled an apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21020959)

Naturally. After all, Google is "good" not "evil". Riiiiight.

Re:MS Pulled an apple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021223)

I'm in the EMR industry, and I heard about Google's initiative long before Microsoft announced theirs.

"Good" vs "evil" has nothing to do with it. Google getting into this first is fact.

Re:MS Pulled an apple (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021851)

FACT: Anonymous Cowards never lie.

Re:MS Pulled an apple (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022171)

Could be I'm an AC because I'm pulling your leg and have no reputation to worry about this way, could be I'm an AC because I'm a generally reputable community member who's worried about the career impact of discussing things learned in confidence in a public forum. You pays your money and you takes your changes.

s/changes/chances/ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022237)

[NT]

(Except to note that the comment this is a correction to is expressing something obvious. Who doesn't realize the AC's dual nature?)

Re:MS Pulled an apple (1, Funny)

carguy84 (897052) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020977)

Knowing google's scouring abilities, I'm sure they already have everyone's anyway.

No, MS is going after VistA, Google is drafting (1, Offtopic)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021381)

No, MS is simply going after VistA [vistasoftware.org] . Now that the MS marketing engine has had a year to Google-bomb them out of existence. After all, if it doesn't exist in Google then it's not on the net, right?

With somewhat more than a year of MS' loyal media outlets yammering about MS Windows Vista and 'turfers and Gold Partners setting up blogs and fake websites about MS Windows Vista, the real VistA [vistasoftware.org] should be long gone from even the caches. Don't even get me started on the corporate PR playground that is Wikipedia.

So now, when administrators decide to investigate what's the most widely used medial record system, they won't likely find it on the net. Nor will they find out that it is modular, standards, based and like most software, VistA is Open Source [hardhats.org] *.

(OK, technically it's public domain, but you do get the source under a Crowley-style license as a result.)

Re:No, MS is going after VistA, Google is drafting (-1, Flamebait)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021531)

You talk about Microsoft astroturfers, then make a post which is basically nothing more than glowing praise for some medical records software.

The irony is just astounding here. I'm truly floored.

Re:No, MS is going after VistA, Google is drafting (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022139)

You missed this Vista [unc.edu] (the Visual Statistics System by Forrest W. Young), which is probably the (much underrated — quality does not 'sell') 'original'.

CC.

Translation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21020955)

We don't have enough of your personal data. Why don't you let us have your health records too?

Re:Translation (5, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021015)

Unfortunately that's pretty close to the facts...Google is starting to get closer and closer to that satirical picture where someone googles "Where are my Car Keys" and Google actually knows. For some this may be a boon, but it also has negative impacts as well.

Re:Translation (5, Interesting)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021177)

:-) Imagine a Google-search enabled roomba going about it's daily business, picking up things like RFID tags on your car keys, updating your 'Google home' database. When you lose the keys, search your Google home "where are my car keys" and it pops up a map of your house illustrating the last known position.

Re:Translation (0, Redundant)

me at werk (836328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021539)

Make it an extension to google desktop and add an RFID scanner to this guy [irobot.com] and by golly you've got a money tree on your hands.

Remote controlled key chain beepers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022253)

I have a set of remote beepers I got at Radio Shack which has been a lifesaver for me many times. Unfortunately in my area once in a while someone transmits on the freq. it uses so sometimes it won't beep unless I hold the remote and beeper close together, but it doesn't happen that often.

Re:Translation (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021391)

Geeze, you're sure right. I Googled 'anal warts' and their first result was "Hi, Ed, who lives at 1425 Maryland Avenue. For $50, we won't tell your wife you queried about this."

The writing's on the wall (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021025)

There's no excuse for using Google for anything. Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public, it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are.

"Free" is far, far too expensive of a price to pay for any of Google's "services", as neat as they may be.

http://www.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org] (they even have a https Firefox plugin and an IE agent available) is a good alternative for searching. Don't forget to disable in your hosts file or via adblock all of Google's ads and tracking robots that track 90% of the websites you visit.

The truth hurts (0)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021349)

How is this a troll? The AC is 100% correct.

Google's business is targeted ads (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021405)

it really makes you question their ultimate goals

Why? Google is all about targeted advertising. Better profiles on us just lets them deliver better ads. These profiles are what Google, Microsoft, etc are all fighting over.

Re:Google's business is targeted ads (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021695)

And honestly, I don't mind targeted ads - if done right I might actually be interested! Compare those to cable TV ads...

The issue is when that data is retained after processing and potentially lost/given/used inappropriately.

Re:The writing's on the wall (2, Insightful)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021681)

Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public

Well, uh, yes. They're a search company. Collecting information on everything and anything is what they do.

it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are

Well yes, they must obviously be a branch of the CIA/Haliburton! If not them, then the Illuminati/Freemason coalition must be responsible for Google's large market cap. Brilliant.

Re:The writing's on the wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021821)

Well, uh, yes. They're a search company. Collecting information on everything and anything is what they do.


That could be. But ask yourself this: if their goal was far more sinister than that, wouldn't being a search company be a great cover?


Well yes, they must obviously be a branch of the CIA/Haliburton! If not them, then the Illuminati/Freemason coalition must be responsible for Google's large market cap. Brilliant.


An ad hominem attack does not an argument make. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to question Google's links to the CIA, it's [washingtonpost.com] a [keyhole.com] fact [google-watch.org] .

Re:The writing's on the wall (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022027)

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to question Google's links to the CIA, it's a fact.

Huh? So now Google's somehow in a conspiracy with the CIA because they bought out Keyhole [wikipedia.org] and turned it into Google Earth?

Google Mission Statement (2, Insightful)

EmotionToilet (1083453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022147)

"To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." And that's exactly that they seem to be doing. I don't get it when people argue that Google is evil because they want information. Information, and the processing or storage of it, is not a bad thing. It's a persons/organizations motivations that are capable of being good and bad. And generally Google = Good, other companies (Microsoft) = Bad.

Re:The writing's on the wall (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022243)

Do you remember what the web was like before google? I recall the relief on peoples faces when I showed google to them. Not a surprise at all that they moved up so quickly.

Re:Translation (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021119)

Why don't you let us have your health records too?

The operative word here is "let". It's not like they are indexing publicly available records and placing them out there in one easy to locate spot for everyone to see. People choose to use GMail, have their conversations logged in GTalk, catalog their daily schedules and sync their work calendaring to GCalendar, and search for ways to kill their lovers in the most secretive ways on Vanilla Google.

If someone wants to offer up their personal privacy to a company, so be it. While I'm not telling you to stop your personal crusade to educate the retarded general public, I'm just telling you that it's better than what other companies are probably doing behind closed doors. I guarantee that Google, even in its infinitely undetermined future evil ways will be less so than 99% of the rest of the companies out there.

I really hope that I don't get proven wrong ;)

Re:Translation (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021185)

It's not like they are indexing publicly available records and placing them out there in one easy to locate spot for everyone to see.


They would if there were any such records. And it'd only bother them when you put in "Eric Schmidt medical records". Then they'd throw a bit of a tantrum and not talk to you for a year.

I guarantee that Google, even in its infinitely undetermined future evil ways will be less so than 99% of the rest of the companies out there.


So what is your guarantee worth? Seriously. Because anyone with even a modicum of a brain would be able to recognize that there are thousands and thousands of small companies in the world that are busy enough just staying in business and even if they wanted to be "evil" they lack the necessary resources.

The funny thing is that anybody would think that giving Google any significantly person information about themselves would be smart. It's been demonstrated time and again that Google isn't any more capable at keeping the asshats out than any other web service.

And they've really only managed to hit two home runs in all the efforts that they have made: Advertising, and a distance second, search. I suppose you could throw in the fact that they are really good at externalizing costs. We all pay for our internet connection and then a significant portion of our bandwidth is used solely for the benefit and profit of Google to stream ads all over your screen.

We're already paying an internet tax and it's going to Google.

Re:Translation (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021321)

---We all pay for our internet connection and then a significant portion of our bandwidth is used solely for the benefit and profit of Google to stream ads all over your screen.

Try rephrasing that. The Unintelligent pay for the ads streamed all over their screens.

The intelligent run their own cut and dry DNS server with "Does Not Exist" on ad servers. Along with that, the intelligent use Firefox with strong ad blockers and HTML 'cleaners' to prevent stupid Javascript (when we even allow it).

The intelligent hear no ads, speak no ads, see no ads. mizaru, kikazaru, iwazaru

Re:Translation (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021519)

No, the intelligent don't give a damn about ads, they learn to tune them out automatically.

I'm only part serious, of course (although that is what I do)... my point is to stop being smug about what you're doing, attitudes like that make life worse for everyone.

Re:Translation (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021447)

We all pay for our internet connection and then a significant portion of our bandwidth is used solely for the benefit and profit of Google to stream ads all over your screen.

Firefox [mozilla.com] + Adblock [mozilla.org] + NoScript [mozilla.org] = User Control

Declare your independence from Internet advertisers and take back control of the connection that you pay for. Your bandwidth, your client, your rules.

Re:Translation (1)

Strilanc (1077197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021689)

Don't forget Remote It Permanently and/or GreaseMonkey, for those websites that really, really want to deliver ads and sign-up links.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021769)

You could phrase that just as much the other way: Their content, their server, their site, their rules. Don't pretend that it's free to run a website.

take back control of the connection that you pay for. Your bandwidth, your client, your rules.

Re:Translation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022017)

The funny thing is that anybody would think that giving Google any significantly person information about themselves would be smart. It's been demonstrated time and again that Google isn't any more capable at keeping the asshats out than any other web service.
Well, if it's been demonstrated time and again that Google has hacked and user data has been stolen, you shouldn't have any trouble citing examples. Since I'm sure such events would have made the press, please post from reputable sources.

And they've really only managed to hit two home runs in all the efforts that they have made: Advertising, and a distance second, search. I suppose you could throw in the fact that they are really good at externalizing costs. We all pay for our internet connection and then a significant portion of our bandwidth is used solely for the benefit and profit of Google to stream ads all over your screen.
I'm sure Google pays plenty for its own bandwidth and internet access. I'm sorry you feel that websites should subsidize your internet access for content you chose to pull down. Personally I'm just happy that for one relatively low rate with an ISP I can access millions of useful websites; An amount of information access that is unparalleled in human history. While its true that sites have ads now, that's simply sound economics; The ".com" idiocy of 1999 is gone, and running sites costs money. Might I also add that Google's text ads are quite a bit less annoying (and less bandwidth heavy) than the now-common Flash, video, audio, and animated GIFs. Are a dozen 20-word ads really slowing down your internet connection and taking up a large portion of your bandwidth? Maybe its time to upgrade your 14.4 modem.

We're already paying an internet tax and it's going to Google.
Yeah I wish it could be free like television or radio. If you only watch PBS and listen to NPR, that is.

Data mining (5, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021135)

Epidemiological data mining. Google Earth overlays, with clusters of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and E. coli infections near fast food restaurants. There might be clusters of radon-related lung cancer. There are some really nifty things you could find out by centralizing medical records. Alter or improve traffic patterns in neighborhoods where statistically more people are getting hit by cars.

I'm not advocating that we actually do all this, just pointing out some possibilities.

Re:Data mining (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021253)

Yeah then we can use google's sidewalk view to zoom in, look in your window, and check the specimen (you) out.

But the good news is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021345)

They at least won't be able to hear your conversations. Well they will, but it'll just sound like gibberish.

Now where the hell did this rotating green diamond over my head come from?

Re:Data mining (3, Funny)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021319)

Data mining, when done well, can be very beneficial.
Somehow, all I can think of is more targeted ads for Viagra instead.

Re:Data mining (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021559)


Somehow, all I can think of is more targeted ads for Viagra instead.


That would be just wonderful! Because, see, I'M NOT A TARGET FOR VIAGRA. I'm 35, and very sexually active, with my wife and I having 6 kids. I have no interest in Viagra WHATSOEVER. The noodle is holding up just fine, thanks.

It would be such a JOY to have targeted V146rA ads, instead of the spammy "M4ke CHIsk LOVE yuz" crap I have to deal with, simply because, being targeted, I wouldn't receive them.

Targeting ads is not a bad thing. It means delivering ads to people who might actually give a flying wit about the ad by having shown some actual interest in the area. For example, if I'm searching for UPS systems, feel free to show me some ads from UPS vendors. If I'm looking at flooring for my 1,500 sq ft extension, I'd love to have ads comparing Laminate flooring to carpet to tile to linoleum. If I'm poking around websites about erectile dysfunction, show me some ads for Viagra/Cialis/whatever!

But I have no desire for Viagra and never have shown any, in any way I can discern. I don't bank at Chase bank, I don't have any funds at Paypal, I don't want to meet a cheap, horny bar slut, and I sure don't want to do business with a wealthy oil tycoon's lawyer in Sudan. Targeting would be a blessing, because all this CRAP I receive would go away.

Do you know what you're paying? (2, Interesting)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021357)

The problem is Google doesn't spell out how they use your data. I believed that Google only displayed ads based on what was on the page when I opened an e-mail. They MIGHT do this, or they might scour the e-mail for information and attach it to my username. I don't know. When Gmail was first launched Google made it sound like they did the former, only after reading the privacy policy did I realize they left themselves open to do the latter.

Re:Do you know what you're paying? (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021425)

Why is harvesting info from gmail a surprise? They had been using search to profile individuals to deliver targeted ads for quite a while.

Re:Do you know what you're paying? (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021453)

Because when Gmail was first launched there was a big privacy outcry and Google came out assuring us it was all about nothing. They made it sound like they didn't harvest e-mails.

Re:Do you know what you're paying? (3, Informative)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021629)

They made it sound like they didn't harvest e-mails.
No, they didn't. Assured you there were no real privacy concerns, yes. Claim they didn't do automated analysis of email contents for purposes of searching ads, no.

Seriously -- I was reading their statements at the time, and it was clear as day. They do automated analysis for targeting ads, but don't do any cross-correlation that would be a privacy breach in the sense that any other human being finds out something they shouldn't.

Re:Translation (0, Troll)

talledega500 (994228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021477)

Spam ADS on my xrays and medical records. Plus now with sponsored search of my medical records!

Do you own "ow my back hurts give me back my privacy motherfuking ad spam bitch.com"?

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021733)

"Google doesn't know enough about you"

-- gooey head exec honcho

Stay the fuck clear of this monster!

wow... (0, Offtopic)

simonharvey (605068) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020963)

it is not April the 1st????

is it?

awesome (5, Insightful)

thatshortkid (808634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020975)

targeted ads for calcium supplements next to broken bone x-rays, valtrex next to any note with keyword "itchy" or "burns", viagra/levitra with "limp". the possibilities are endless!

Bad News (2, Funny)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021069)

Caskets
Looking for Caskets?
Find exactly what you want today!
www.eBay.com [ebay.com]

Life Insurance
Compare rates from top companies.
Save up to 70% on life insurance.
www.insurance.com [insurance.com]

Re:awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021139)

No history of venereal disease listed.
Breast enchancement before/after pics

*click here for Google's new free male escort service, a recent summer of code project.

Better than the MS version (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021419)

No matter what records you upload to it it always does the same thing:

Clippy - "It looks like your dying of cancer"

Re:awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021965)

How is viagra going to help me walk without favoring one leg?

Oooh, limp.

Think of the chairs!!! (-1, Offtopic)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020983)

Just recently, the situation called for a 3 seater sofa [citation needed]. I believe a church pew would be thrown because of this one.

How many more chairs must suffer!!

Re:Think of the chairs!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021115)

:D I very much doubt there are any chairs flying, but I'm rather certain the monkeys want their dance back.

It's entirely possible I'm clueless here, but this service seems to target a rather small market. How many people do you know that collect and track their own medical records? I'm sure people do, but enough that two massive companies would both jump on trying to make a market opportunity out of it in two weeks time? I think it's much more likely one of them has been working on it, and the other heard about it and quickly released a reactionary product, and Google doesn't strike me as the knee-jerk reaction kind of company. Fast, perhaps, but would they go out of there way to compete for such a small market if they didn't already have prior interest? Now look at it from the other side, would MS engage in such behavior?

No tin foil hats or supporting facts, just one company with a track record of underhanded business practices and a stated desire to crush the other.

Re:Think of the chairs!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021279)

Don't think about individuals who want to track their own medical records. Think about the morass of EMR vendors with incompatible solutions who can't share data, so doctors have no way to get a patient's record from System A to System B when doing a referral or when a patient moves.

And as for money -- there's real money here. Doctors' eyeballs are worth more to advertisers than anyone else's.

Should they implement this in China... (-1, Troll)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020989)

Wouldnt it then be used just to expedite the post-execution harvesting of organs?

Just think... (3, Funny)

Perseid (660451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020995)

...of all the targeted ads you'll get if you have erectile dysfunction...

Re:Just think... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021653)

but I don't! I really don't! See, this is what I've been trying to explain to spammers all along - I would love to purchase their merchandise and take interest in expanding their business, but I really can get boners without much of a hassle. I could never understant the idea of bombarding me with mails after I have explained that no, thank you, I DONT have a medical condition. You can't force me to have a problem by sending me mail, you know. When will they understand?

But you save on the porn ads (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022195)

After all, what is the point.

What should worry you is when you start getting spam for cemetery plots.

old idea (3, Informative)

bwy (726112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021003)

This idea is far from new. I interviewed with a small company back in 99 called e-medsoft.com that was trying to put medical records online. The idea has a lot of merit when you look at all the paper that moves from place to place in the health care industry. The company I interviewed with went belly up, because it was too hard to get people to adopt the technology. It needs to be nearly ubiquitous to add the most value. Plus, there are a lot of regulations and privacy laws in place which make it a little more difficult to effectively do business in this space.

Re:old idea (1)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021043)

Web 2.0: What's old is new AGAIN! Beside, isn't MS is offering the Vault? I won't trust either company.

Re:old idea (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021097)

You're right, this isn't new, but now you have well known established companies doing it and a fairly recent natural disaster(Katrina). While Katrina didn't cause everyone to make plans, buy emergency supplies, etc. It is still memorable enough to make people take an easier step like electronically available medical records.

Re:old idea (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022009)

Except when they discover the datacenter storing those records was in a basement level facility in N'awlins, right? :)

Re:old idea (3, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021541)

Yes, but name anything on the web today that wasn't being done by some combination of archie, gopher and WAIS. It all depends, of course, on the way in which this is done. There are MANY applications now for Linux for processing EEG and EKG data, CAT scans, MRIs and the like. Will either company develop formats that interoperate with these?

There are also packages specifically designed for indexing and sharing files. Will there be a DSpace filter supplied? Will Glimpse be able to search the metadata? Is any geographical data going to be in a format a GIS database can handle? (A person may wish to compare health information with where they were living at the time, for example. I'll assume for a moment that the data is confidential to the person concerned, at least in Europe where data privacy laws will be involved, and hopefully anonymous anywhere it's not confidential.)

Will data be correlatable or will each data chunk be in total isolation? Correlations might be interesting to people who suspect an undiagnosed underlying condition where multiple diagnosed symptoms exist and are treated, and might be a lot more convincing to doctors than patients who say "well, I don't think this really expensive treatment plan is working too well..."

It matters very little what people are saying they will code. Some things will prove intractable when the project specification is drawn up, when the developers try to implement it or when the managers run out of budget. Other things will evolve out of brainstorming sessions and wild drunken parties during the project. What actually ends up happening is rarely what is envisaged at the start, for all kinds of reasons. Sure, we can guess at what would be logical, but since when has a single project - Open Source, Closed Source or Hot Sauce - ever ended up being entirely - or even remotely - logical?

Interesting... (1)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021013)

Sheldon [sheldoncomics.com] called this!

X-rays? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021031)

So are they going to scan for free (or even a small fee) the approx 40x60 cm films I got from my doctor when I moved? The nearby Kinko's can't do film that size... unless they treat it as printed material, which would be a lousy scan.

Re:X-rays? Seriously? (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021417)

That won't be too hard, since more and more radiographs are digital now. In 10 years you will be hard pressed to find someone who does things the old fashioned way. So Google can offer that now, knowing that ultimately, you will just upload them the digital file.

Re:X-rays? Seriously? (1)

martinX (672498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021515)

Those digital x-rays can be pretty big files...

PACS systems tend to be dedicated systems.

Re:X-rays? Seriously? (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021811)

Well I was talking about the idea of scanning films that AC spoke of - which is a moot point about now (unless you are talking archives.)
A single view chest is about 5-7 Mb.... though of course CT scans will multiply that by many slices. However, I think google might have the advantage that the ability to store data cheaply will in all likelihood increase at a rate higher than the rate at which the resolution of radiographs increases. So the problem would still seem to be a self-solver. Its pricier now, but eventually I think it will be less expensive.
Lastly, I think google will probably take advantage of the fact that most people have relatively short and limited medical histories. Its only the unhealthy or neurotic who will have 100 gig of data to store.

Re:X-rays? Seriously? (2, Informative)

mudshark (19714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022039)

Try a judicious amount of wavelet compression. You can get 100:1 and better while retaining a highly accurate image. JPEG-2000 uses wavelets and is an accepted part of the DICOM standard for diagnostic imaging. You do want a qualified person deciding how much compression to apply once it gets to the lossy threshhold (~10:1 or so).

Ob quote! (4, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021039)

I can't believe I'm about to quote this movie, I really never thought it would happen... From Roadhouse [imdb.com] :

Doc: Do you always carry your medical record around with you?
Dalton: Saves time.


Now, if only we could have a story that I could relate the sex scene in the back room of the bar to. "But I'm on my break!"

Re:Ob quote! (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021207)

Frighteningly enough, I actually used to have a file with my records, copies of my x-rays, etc in it because it was easier than having them look everything up or call various specialists because of a few past injuries.

It got to the point where I just ended up memorizing most of it and a fair chunk of my family med history. Freaked the heck out of one doc the first time I saw her and she asked me if I had any family histories of certain things and various questions about past medical history.

She just looked at me for a minute and said she'd never actually had someone who could answer those questions before.

Imagine... (2, Funny)

Rhoads47 (1050834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021067)

Imagine the AdSense possibilities! (Image of XRay on screen) Ads: It looks like you have a concussion. Click here to find out more concussion.info Get your XRay evaluated by our e-forum of over 12,000 board-certified specialists. WebMD.com Looking for xrays? Find exactly what you want today. ebay.com

Re:Imagine... (1)

gwbennett (988163) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021569)

Buy a concussion on ebay!

Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021083)

Why can't *I* keep my medical records on me, on my person with a password on me, on my person?

The way I figure it is an encrypted USB drive and public key that I give my current provider.

I would also like to fire them (and their ability to have access to my records) at whim.

Unlike Clooney, I want *MY* data to be MINE. Not in the hands of others.

Google with my records? I don't think so.

Re:Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption. (1)

wizden (965907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021433)

Exactly. This can be done, but it's not by Google. They might be capable, but their entire business model screams against this. I have dealt with various EMR systems and there is no way that they are ready to offer data in an open way. They all operate off of non-standard databases and their developers are worth a shit. This is big PR bullshit. They are no way ready to start doing this. It might as well be flying cars.

Re:Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption. (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022221)

They all operate off of non-standard databases and their developers are worth a shit. This is big PR bullshit. They are no way ready to start doing this. It might as well be flying cars.
When I was in France a couple of years ago, I was given a CD with the x-rays of my teeth and my mom was given a CD with the data of her CT-scan. When we came back to the US, we gave those CDs to our dentist and doctor respectively, and they had no trouble taking a look at them.

I don't see what the big deal is. Just let the patients have access to their own medical records. They can give me hard copies, or soft copies, I don't care. Those records in my possession will be valuable in themselves. The integration and centralization can always come later, as that will probably require more time and more work.

Re:Oh hell no. Give me a USB drive and encryption. (4, Insightful)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021485)

Excellent idea. Though if I were you, I would also consider emailing the pertinent stuff to yourself lest your drive be lost in the car wreck when you get to the ER. I have had patients in the past who said "If you can get me online I can get you my old EKG, medications list, etc" and that has been quite useful.

I would also like to fire them (and their ability to have access to my records) at whim.
For future records, yes. If I treat you and subsequently you fire me, you have every right that I not be able to see records of your future medical care. However, any records of your care (or records you previously have had sent to me from other providers) not only should, but must (by law) be maintained by me and thus available to me.
Of course I might be willing to agree to remove your records from my office or record storage facility if: 1) it were no longer against the law, 2) there was no issue with FDA regulated drug abuse or diversion, and 3) by doing so you relinquish all rights in the future to sue me since your medical record is my entire documentation of my version of events should we have a disagreement in the future.

Intresting point, whose records are they (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022257)

If I take a picture of you, it is a picture of YOU, but MY picture. The english language really fails here because you could also say it is your picture as in you are in the picture without actually owning said picture.

Medical records are of a person, but are created by another person reflecting that persons opinions about that other person. Who owns a record, the person who wrote it or who it is about? You can say that you want your records in your hands but you are quit right that this would remove from the doctor all the information he has collected that he could need in a lawsuit. It would be like saying, that speedcamera picture belongs to me, okay, now I got it, go ahead and prove I speeded. HAHA!

I think we barking up the wrong tree here, medical records being kept is useful, useful for the patient because a doctor can see your history. Useful for the doctor since it saves time, useful for society since you can use it to tell what is happening to the population.

What we need to do is put extremely harsh punishements in place against abuse. Sell medical data, serious jail time for EVERYONE involved, the person who stole it, who transported it, who bought it and who used it.

Because abuse is possible of something doesn't mean you get rid of something, you get rid of the abuser.

Offcourse this is hard to believe in when even the most basic save guards against abuse of our freedoms are being trampled on the world over.

Because you might be unconcious (2, Insightful)

riker1384 (735780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021579)

If you had an encrypted USB stick and you become incapacitated, you wouldn't be be able to tell them what the key was. There would have to be some way for emergency personnel to access the records without help from the patient.

Fun! (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021091)

This is great, now we can see celebrity medical records. CmdrTaco's records should pop right up!

Re:Fun! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021423)

I don't want to see anything of CmdrTaco's popping up!

"Tote?" (1)

ragingmime (636249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021149)

Google announced today that it plans to offer online personal health records to help patients tote and store their own x-rays and other health data.

What, are they going to put all the ones and zeros in little baggies or something?

Re:"Tote?" (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021461)

I thought it meant they were going to supply the data to the betting stands at horse races. Well, same thing really, I guess.

I've predicted it, sort of... (0, Offtopic)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021239)

See cid=20905389 [slashdot.org] : I was just joking about this, but maybe I should start a checklist.

Decisions, decisions... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021263)

Hmmm, so who do I want to keep my medical records with, Google or Microsoft ..... Anybody has an accurate evil-o-meter handy?

Google's doing it now? Good (1)

KWTm (808824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021313)

Previously I had said that I worried about Microsoft running a repository of health data. With Google announcing a similar initiative, I am less worried.

It's not because Microsoft is evil and Google is good. It's because there's competition, so Microsoft can't just run the whole show.

Make no mistake --it's still a worrisome thing. No one entity should have such a large portion of our data.

For those whose warm fuzzy feelings about Google blind them to the danger: the problem is not that Larry Page and Sergey Brin are evil. It's that eventually someone else evil may take the reins. Entities like the USA and Germany used to be good, too, before the "right" (well, wrong) leader took control.

And for those of you trying to spin this as a "look at all the statistical analysis Google can do for the good of the world" --well, good. Google can go purchase the aggregated statistical data from an independent company. There's no need for Google itself to get its hands on individual data points.

Be scared, people. The growing data-aggregation power of Google is as ominous as software patents had been a few years ago: "Yeah, yeah, we know the theoretical danger, but it'll be a long long time before it actually happens." Be very scared.

Mine is broken, sorry, it just won't stop beeping (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022263)

No matter where I take it, it beeps like it is in the presence of the dark lord himself. No idea what causes it, was like that when I first took it out of the package.

CAD (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021265)

The next step is to automatically analyze them. Like researchers (including myself) are doing already.

Google is just one of many PHR offerings (1)

LarryIsMe (945734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021285)

There are numerous companies that are ahead of Google when it comes to Personal Health Records.

You can see a list of these companies at MyPhr.Com [myphr.com] . Wikipedia also has a good article [wikipedia.org] .

Steve Case has started a company called Revolution Health [revolutionhealth.com]

I work at a PHR company called ICW [icw-global.com] which is headquartered in Germany.

I think it's all very exciting as long as you see in the context of the other offerings that are out there.

-Larry

Good on Google.. (3, Funny)

dilby (725275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021299)

For finally finding a shark to jump.

Cross-site scripting vulnerability (1)

agent_no.82 (935754) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021355)

In light of that recent (major) data leak, can we trust even such a supposedly reliable bastion as Google to store such sensitive information?
Corporations seem to have more data on us than our own government. This worries me.

The good, the bad, teh Google... (0, Troll)

Merovign (557032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021497)

Wow, the convenience! Wow, the spam! Wow, the research possibilities! Wow, the fraud!

I think the more serious question is, is it inevitable? Probably.

Would I prefer Google or MS to do it? No. Is it going to be one of them? probably.

I never got excited about "net neutrality" 'cause whiever way it goes, somebody gets screwed.

I used to be "super privacy man!" but looking more deeply at things like this, and I don't have a strong position other than "well, we'd better learn to keep an eye on our data - one more thing on the list."

I think it's funny that cluster studies have been brought up as a positive... that's one of the areas that led me to spend more time trying to check the data when I hear about a study... it's kind of shocking how much innumeracy falls inbetween data and conclusions.

Dear Google, dear Microsoft, (3, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021705)

You can have my health records when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Adam Woswrth's Project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021837)

This is the project that Adam Woswrth was working on. He has left now google

http://www.adambosworth.net/ [adambosworth.net]

What data? (5, Informative)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021895)

The one concern that I would have about this in the hands of the consumer is data suppression. For 97% of people that is of no importance, but in a small percentage its pertinent. (I am an ER doctor, so necessarily I am a bit jaded.)

For example, I've been lied to many times by patients regarding narcotic pain medicine prescriptions. For example, I treated someone this year to whom I gave an rx for 30 vicodins. I get a letter a month later from the State Controlled Substance guys (because one physician who rx'd to this patient requested a print out of the patient's controlled substance prescription records - which triggers a letter sent to everyone who rx'd him controlled medicines in the past.) So this guy had gotten the equivalent of 30 vicodins daily over a period of a few months (from many doctors, using different pharmacies, often getting two or three rxs in one day.) This means either he is in fulminant liver failure from all the tylenol or he's selling it for fun'n'profit.

So now, if he returns to my hospital (or any of the physicians or hospitals he shopped at) any provider who has not seen him before can pull his record their and see his real history. That's the benefit of a record that is out of the hands of the patient. Now that is meaningless for the 97% of people who are above-board. However the fact that the 3% exist do mean that any patient maintained record that providers can't add to independent of the patient's wishes will be taken with at least a bit of a grain of salt in some circumstances. Your old EKG or Chest Xray is not going to be suspect, but the report that you have only filled one rx for vicodin in the past 6 years and your 'documented allergy' to every pain medicine except for vicodin might be a bit suspect.

New Google ads (3, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021963)

And here are the new targeted Google ads for various demographics:

Gambler demographic: You seem to be having some broken kneecaps. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy tips on how to repay your 30% loans before the end of the week, guaranteed'?

Soccer mom demographic: You seem to be having a broken hipbone. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy excuses to tell your husband when your secret lover is too rough in bed'?

School nerd demographic: You seem to be having a broken finger. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy ways to teach your football team a lesson they'll remember for a long time'?

Protester demographic: You seem to be having a broken arm. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy ways to taunt the cops safely in any street march'?

Soldier demographic: You seem to be having a broken foot. Would you like to buy the book '12 easy ways to break doors in during house to house combat'?

Combine this with the Google Satellite Map... (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021989)

and YouTube and you get Google Blackmail! [youtube.com]

Fuck that shit. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022031)

Fuck that shit.

Why? (1)

NWprobe (28716) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022043)

This is no problem where I live. By law I have the right to access all my medical records, and the hospital is allready storing my records and X-rays digital. I trust the the hospitals more than Google anyway :-)

I live in a country with free health care, so I have control over my health care information. It's a part of what makes a democracy :-)

Employers and insurers are salavating over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022125)

stuff like this is really valuable to their rejection process.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>