Tech giants back online health records standards

Microsoft and Google have joined a collection of insurers and health care providers in endorsing privacy standards intended to protect medical records stored online.

The new "Connecting For Health" guidelines, which are also intended to reassure people that storage of their medical records online is safe, aim to break the "typical logjam in health care," according to a statement released by the Markle Foundation, which organized the consensus framework.

The move comes as Google and Microsoft ramp up their efforts to create portals where consumers can l upload, store, and view personal information, as well as share that information with medical professionals and insurance companies.

However, consumer adoption has been slow. Just 6.1 million adults in the United States have electronic personal health records, according to estimates released by the Markle Foundation.

"Consumer demand for electronic personal health records and online health services will take off when consumers trust that personal information will be protected," Zoe Baird, the Markle Foundation's president, said Wednesday in a statement.

A report in the New England Journal of Medicine in April suggested that Google and Microsoft's databases of patient information could eventually grow to be larger and more up-to-date than the databases of other well-known medical research programs. As a result, researchers may find it easier and cheaper to team up with Microsoft and Google when doing their research, rather than relying on a number of sources for data to do their research.

Others supporting the guidelines include WebMD, lobbying group AARP, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, BlueCross BlueShield Association, and the American Medical Association.

[Lerianis]

Here is the best standard for this: simply don't have the health records online unless they are behind VERY high encryption, with a different encryption key or password given to every doctor around the country so that they can monitor who is accessing these records and changing them.

[jamalystic]

I perfectly agree with you. One can hardly trust the likes of Google or Microsoft espaecially when such organizations have shown over the years that their only motivation is profit. No wonder people are still very skeptical and just making guidelines would not suffice in convincing many of us. As pointed out in this article, there are more security concerns they have to address: Google Health Needs Security RX (http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=567&doc_id=155420&F_src=flftwo)

[Len Bullard]

It's not that simple. There is a class of Reportable Health Events that by law your health provider must report to the Department of Health of your state or local agency. HIPPA rules apply to these systems which are required to strip out the personal identification information, but the DOH or State Epidemiologist can request that information when a case investigation is initiated for say a communicable disease (say ebola, AIDS, etc.).

The situation is similar for any public safety system that is aggregating case information. For very large jurisdictions with MOAs, the amount of information being kept is significant. This means the agencies have to acquire the infrastructure or outsource that to in-country contractors.

Google and Microsoft understand that and are trying to understand how they fit into that market. It's a good idea given the skills required.

[jypeterson]

Another reason why adoption rates are slow is that most hospitals and doctor's offices do not have electronic patient records. The systems are very expensive to purchase and maintain. Having my medical record in a central database is scary to me, though. I agree that encryption standards are lacking, but what gets me more is that there is the "big brother" aspect of medical records.

What if you have a chronic condition -- not detrimental, but still chronic. Does this mean that your insurer will have access to your medical records and can increase your rates because you have a history of X? They can then deny you coverage for that. It opens up a whole new world of medical business that we are not used to...

[jamalystic]

I perfectly agree with you. One can hardly trust the likes of Google or Microsoft espaecially when such organizations have shown over the years that their only motivation is profit. No wonder people are still very skeptical and just making guidelines would not suffice in convincing many of us. As pointed out in this article, there are more security concerns they have to address: Google Health Needs Security RX (http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=567&doc_id=155420&F_src=flftwo)

[Robbiex]

There is no way to make any database secure, especially from misuse by those who have administrative control of the database. Regardless of the good intentions of the initial database managers, the rules can change with different managers and with appeals that it "would be in the national interest".
HIPPA gives payers, review entities, and multiple other parties with essentially unrestricted access to one's medical records. Those who have signed a MIB release, as is required for most applications for private health, disability and life insurance in USA, have already given permission for the MIB to access their medical records.
The Patriot Act, Protect America Act (now in limbo), the latest FISA ( revision should it become law), CALEA, and a variety of other federal acts and presidential directives give a multitude of federal agencies permission to monitor telecommunications and to access various databases.
There are many benefits to an on-line medical database, but one should recognize that the information contained in such a database will neither be private nor will its usage be under patient control.

[JayAndrews]

A benefit of electronic systems is data accuracy. In a well designed software system, many data entry fields will be checked for valid entries.The dream of the paperless work environment is a definite benefit of having an electronic medical records system.

[JayAndrews]

The dream of the paperless work environment is a definite benefit of having an electronic medical records system.A benefit of electronic systems is data accuracy. In a well designed software system, many data entry fields will be checked for valid entries