Again, in the last week, I have come across a few reports and news items which are worth passing on.
These include first:
Google to store health records
Michael Liedtke in San Francisco | February 22, 2008
GOOGLE will begin storing the medical records of a few thousand people as it tests a long-awaited health service that's likely to raise more concerns about the volume of sensitive information entrusted to the internet search leader.
The pilot project to be announced today will involve 1500 to 10,000 patients at the Cleveland Clinic who volunteered to an electronic transfer of their personal health records so they can be retrieved through Google's new service, which won't be open to the general public.
Each health profile, including information about prescriptions, allergies and medical histories, will be protected by a password that's also required to use other Google services such as email and personalised search tools.
Google views its expansion into health records management as a logical extension because its search engine already processes millions of requests from people trying to find about more information about an injury, illness or recommended treatment.
But the health venture also will provide more fodder for privacy watchdogs who believe Google already knows too much about the interests and habits of its users as its computers log their search requests and store their email discussions.
Prodded by the criticism, Google last year introduced a new system that purges people's search records after 18 months. In a show of its privacy commitment, Google also successfully rebuffed the US Justice Department's demand to examine millions of its users' search requests in a court battle two years ago.
Continue reading here:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23257065-16123,00.html
There have been rumours of this move for a while. They are entering a very crowded field in the US as indicated by the following list.
AHIP PHR Standards
Allscripts Patient Portal
Angel Key
Band of Life
Benefits Manager (American Airlines)
CapMed
Care Memory Band
Chart Scout
CheckUp
Dr. I-Net
E-HealthKEY (MedicAlert)
EMRy Stick
Enterprise Patient Portal
ePHR
Evolution PHR
FollowMe
FullCircle
Global Patient Record
Google (still in development)
Handymedical.com
Health Account Basic
HealthFile
HealthFrame
HealthVault (Microsoft)
iHealthRecord
Indivo (Dossia)
InfoVivo
iPHER
IQHealth
KIS Medical Records
LAXOR
LifeLedger
LifeSensor
MedCard Online/Med-Id-Card
MedCommons
MedDataNet
MedeFile
Medic Tag
Medical Passport
MedicAlert
MediCompass
mediKEEPER
MediStick
MedInfoChip
MedNOTICE
My Family Health Portrait
My Health Connection
My Health Record
My HealtheVet
My MediList
My Medical CD
MyActiveHealth PHR
MyChart (Epic)
myCIGNA
MyFamilyMD
MyHealth123.net
MyHealthAtVanderbilt
myHealthFolders
MyLife
MyMedicalRecords.com
MyMedicare.gov
myNDMA
myuhc.com
MyVitals.com
NoMoreClipboard.com
PHR4me
PatCIS
Pathway Technology
PatienTrak
Patient Power
Peoplechart
Personal Health Record (PepsiCo)
Portable Health Profile
ProfileMD
ReliefInsite.com (using Facebook)
Securamed
SGMSCorp
SynChart
Telemedical.com
The Smart PHR
Touchnetworks H.U.B.
Vital Key
Vital Records
VitalChart
Vividea (Lifetime Personal Health Software)
Waiting Room Solutions
WebMD Health & Benefit Manager
Second we have:
Are Consumers Interested in Having Online Access to Their Medical Records and Test Results?
Nearly eight out of 10 adults responding to a survey said they are interested in having online access to their medical records and test results, and 26% said they would be willing to pay extra for the service, according to a survey by Deloitte. Just 6% of respondents said they have accessed their medical records and test results online.
The survey also found that 76% of respondents are interested in communicating with physicians via e-mail, while 72% would like to schedule appointments online. Twenty-three percent of respondents said they would pay extra for e-mail access to a physician, and 18% said they would pay extra for online appointment scheduling.
Continue reading here:
This is an very interesting survey as it shows just how many people would potentially use a Person Health Record if it were available.
Third we have:
Mum in fear after CSA revealed address to ex-husband
February 18, 2008 12:00am
A MOTHER of four says she has been living in fear since a government agency gave out her address to her allegedly violent ex-husband.
The woman had repeatedly moved house and fought an expensive legal battle to keep her address secret from her ex - only to find it was given to him in documents from the Child Support Agency.
The bungle is the latest in a string by government bodies, with the NSW Department of Community Services mishandling confidential case files three times in recent weeks.
The 36-year-old woman, who asked not to be named, has been involved in a dispute with her ex-husband over support payments for their two children since the couple divorced in 2002.
Her security was shattered when her details were released without her permission in July last year.
She said that just days after she and her ex-husband were sent the same paperwork by the CSA, she received an anonymous letter warning: "You can't hide anymore . . . Your (sic) history."
"I went through the paperwork and my address was listed," the woman said.
"When I realised he'd been given my address I just froze. I had goose bumps and I was in total shock."
Since then, pornography has been delivered to her home address and she believes her ex has visited her house.
In an email seen by The Daily Telegraph, her ex-husband writes: "I couldn't believe my luck when I saw your address in the CSA stuff . . . finally CSA gave me something for once".
Continue reading here:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23229460-5001021,00.html
This is important proof of just how important it is to properly protect demographic details in electronic health systems. If it can be dangerous when a piece of mail goes astray, just how more dangerous is it to have someone of evil intent be able to access a large population demographic database.
Fourthly we have:
Gary Cohen, executive chairman and chief executive, IBA Health Group
E-HEALTH will be back on the national agenda, thanks to the Rudd Government's focus on efficiencies in healthcare, Gary Cohen says.
'E-health will be back on the national agenda,' says Gary Cohen
"The Government will want to get its head around the different health systems and the way they work in the various states, then see whether they can do something with existing systems, or whether they have to take a different tack," he says.
"I imagine we'll start seeing some initiatives come through in the second half of the year, particularly for improved connectivity between the federal and state government systems."
Local health IT organisations see the change as positive, Cohen says. "They believe investment is needed to bring out the efficiencies" that e-health can deliver.
"Trying to get an electronic patient health record system to work across the country is going to be a big task that requires funding," he says. "We're not going to achieve that through multiple pilots or small initiatives, it's going to take a bigger plan.
"We'll have to wait and see if that happens over the next six to 12 months."
This is a year of transition for IBA Health, after its acquisition of rival iSoft, along with key British contracts for the National Health Service's IT transformation.
"Obviously, our first priorities are successfully integrating the combined organisation, reigniting the sales growth, which stalled during the purchase process, and making sure we not only deliver on current commitments but also start to build trust for the future," he says.
Continue reading here:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23234450-5013045,00.html
It is good to see there is some optimism in the health IT industry. I hope this optimism is not misplaced.
Fifth we have:
Born-again biometrics
February 19, 2008
Next
With the change in government it appears that the federal smartcard has been killed by fears of cost overruns and privacy risks. But the biometrics field is pushing on, writes Beverley Head.
HALF a decade before the twin towers fell in New York, Ted Dunstone completed his PhD exploring how computers and biometrics could be used to detect terrorists at airports.
Today he's still working out how biometrics can be harnessed to ensure the right people get access to sensitive locations, equipment and information.
Biometrics involves capturing information about something unique to an individual - their voice, face, iris, fingerprint or even the pattern of their veins. That information is stored on a database or token and when an individual wants to access a computer system, enter premises or cross a border, they speak, show their face, eye, finger or wrist. If it matches the information captured about that biometric, in they go.
This was supposed to be the year that biometrics hit its straps; the year Australia phased in a biometric access card, replacing 17 card or voucher systems. If you wanted to access government services you'd need one.
Privacy advocates were rehearsing their stump speeches, IT integrators were rubbing their hands in anticipation of a flood of consultancy and implementation dollars. The access card was the golden goose.
And it's dead. Or is it? Citing concerns about privacy and a mismatch between the cost of the project compared with the savings it might deliver, Senator Joe Ludwig, Minister for Human Services, has canned the $1.3 billion four-year program and confirmed "there are no plans to revisit the access card in the future. Spending over $1 billion on a magic card is not the solution."
Continue reading here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/bornagain-biometrics/2008/02/18/1203190738826.html
This is a useful discussion of some of the aspects of the use of biometrics and points out that at some point in the future the mechanisms by which government services are accessed – including shared EHRs – will need to be reviewed and upgraded.
Lastly we have:
Govt woes don't trouble TrakHealth
Ben Woodhead | February 20, 2008
MEDICAL software heavyweight InterSystems is eying big ticket hospital software projects in South Australia and Western Australia as it moves to capitalise on its acquisition last year of local firm TrakHealth.
But the company has acknowledged that the spectre of TrakHealth's legal battle with the Queensland Department of Health in relation to a failed patient and clinical systems initiative still looms over its meetings with other public sector organisations.
"Obviously everyone asks questions about it but moving on what's important is that we have a good product," TrakHealth chief operating officer Christine Chapman said.
Ms Chapman declined to confirm if the company was holding settlement discussions with Queensland Health over the hospital software project, which collapsed acrimoniously in late 2006.
TrakHealth subsequently said it would pursue $18.2 million in damages from Queensland Health but the health agency promptly fired back with a $21.9 million counterclaim against TrakHealth.
The matter is expected to go to trial in the Queensland Supreme Court this year if the two parties are unable to reach a settlement.
Continue reading here:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23246200-15306,00.html
This article is worthwhile browsing as it reminds one that there are a number of hospital system vendors who are planning to try and establish a reasonable market share in the sector over the next few years with some of the planned state investments.
More information on Trakhealth also appeared in the Rust Report of the 22 Feb, 2008.
Vic health bodies take on TrakCare
Under the terms of the Victorian Government's $A360 million HealthSmart program, two community health agencies have begun implementing the TrakCare Webbased healthcare information system. TrakCare was designed in Australia by TrakHealth, which was acquired by US database developer InterSystems in 2007 (Rust Report, May 25 2007, p1).
More next week.
David.
3 comments:
The CSA debacle, compromising the confidentiality of the mother's personal information, is just another example (in a very long saga of public sector IT mishaps) which demonstrates why Government and the public sector should never ever be allowed to control anyone's Personal Health Record. That is something which should be done under contract between the individual and reputable, competent , private sector providers who should all be subjected to stringent independent annual auditing and monitoring.
Absolutely right. But the PHR should not be confused with the EHR. The principles you have proposed for the PHR are absolutely correct and Government should have nothing to do with PHR's but will they stay out of that space and just focus on the EHR?
I doubt if they know the difference. They probably see PHRs as just another HealthConnect in a different guise. And if PHRs are going to be the new ehealth they will want to be in there. It's not in their nature to stay on the periphery. I bet before long we will see NEHTA and some of the state governments promoting PHRs an easier way to progress ehealth! Yes Minister.
Post a Comment