Archive for July, 2008

11 July 2008

Why Google Health?

“You know that money beats soul, every time.” – Jim Morrison, the Doors

I have been itching to write a post where I can slip in a quote from my favourite anti-hero, Jim Morrison. So what on earth does this have to do with Google Health? As I was researching a story about Google and e-health for my oft-mentioned feature for Australian Doctor, I came across some interesting questions – and potential answers – about Google’s foray into something seemingly so far from their core business:

“When it comes to health, Google has become the main place patients turn to for health information online. As well as anecdotal stories such as the US man who walked into a hospital after a Google search of his symptoms correctly led to a self-diagnosis of a heart attack, research shows that seeking health information has consistently rated among the most popular activities of Internet users (more than 80%), and Google is the place where 70% of them start their search.

“Doctors like it too. A study published in Australian Family Physician last month revealed that Google was also more popular with Australian GPs surveyed than the next five web sites combined. They said they used Google because of its ability to lead to other web sites of value, its speed and ease of use, its convenience and its wide applicability.

Looking to the future, Google is also positioning itself for a dominant role in a world where medicine is increasingly linked to the Internet with the recent launch of Google Health, an online personal health record service where patients can enter any or all of their medical histories to create a portable data record that can be accessed by a variety of doctors and other health professionals.

“…. Advocates argue that a Google Health personal health record will result in better-informed patients, fewer redundant tests and better-prepared doctors who can get a more complete picture by having their patients’ entire medical history in front of them. Access to crucial information such as allergies and current medications will allow doctors in scenarios such as emergency rooms to avoid many of the medical mistakes that injure patients or land them in hospital for long stays.

Privacy experts, meanwhile, are up in arms about the potential downsides of such a system, particularly in the hands of a company with no history of handling trusted medical data. They have raised strong concerns that private and personal records could be bought and sold by organisations such as pharmaceutical companies.

“…. Like its other services, Google Health is available free to anyone who is willing to take the time to fill out their profile. The “do no evil” cynics have questioned Google’s motives in straying from its core search business. As a Washington Post writer put it: ‘Why would Google take on such a big, difficult project — creating complex data exchange systems and storing all that personal information — if there’s no way to make money?

“’A strong personal health dashboard linked to other Google services, including its cash-cow search business, can make sure those health-seekers stay with Google rather than with the competition. Like Microsoft, for instance.’”

They may seem like they’re just out to provide a useful service to the Internet-using public, but in the long run, making money – and keeping money out of competitors’ pockets – is behind Google Health.

Money beats soul, every time…

10 July 2008

Social networking is ‘the new black’

At the Supernova technology conference in San Francisco last month, there were plenty of practical examples of how social networking is being used in day-to-day life. A report on the conference on the Knowledge@Wharton site included comments from Google’s director of product management, Joe Kraus, who said, “People have been endlessly fascinated by one another for a very long time. Social networking is not new; we just have new ways to do it.”

He cited as an example “his own recent behavior in choosing an anniversary gift for his wife. He searched and found that candy is traditional for a sixth anniversary, then set up a message on his G-mail account, saying he needed ideas for a candy-based gift.

“A friend emailed to tell him of an extraordinary baker who constructs specialty cakes and, thanks to her suggestion, his sixth anniversary gift became an elaborate cake in the shape of a colorful purse. So, said Kraus, he went from solitary information discovery to social information discovery – and a much better result than he could have achieved on his own.”

 ”…Most important, Kraus sees the web eventually becoming entirely social. ‘Today, social computing is something you do at a specific site,” said Kraus. “But we’re realizing that being social is not a site. It’s a concept.’

“We won’t get to that entirely social web, he added, until we find ways to allow users to do three things: establish a single identity to log on to many sites; share private resources such as photos or contact lists without handing out private credentials (such as an email account password); and distribute information across multiple social applications.”

10 July 2008

Government dragging the e-health chain in Australia

Excerpted from a special report I wrote for this week’s Australian Doctor

Jim Clark was known as Silicon Valley’s $3 billion man: the first person to start up three companies that were each capitalised at $1 billion or more. Starting in the 1980s with Silicon Graphics, a pioneer of film and CGI animation, he grew bored with that and helped found Netscape, which launched the world’s first widely used web browser, in the early 1990s.

But his timing failed him when it came to the third venture, an attempt to automate health care. In the late 1990s, Clark set up Healtheon, an online platform joining payers, providers and consumers in an effort to squeeze inefficiencies out of the $US7 trillion a year US industry. The company was quickly capitalised at $US20 billion, largely on the strength of Clark’s reputation.

However, Healtheon struggled to get any of its projects off the ground, encountering resistance from every angle. Doctors said they were too busy to learn new things, and besides, they didn’t want better communication with patients — face-to-face was just fine with them. Health maintenance organisations and insurance companies, meanwhile, turned their backs on a no-risk opportunity to save 90% on transaction costs — they didn’t want to make it easy for people to make claims, because the more arcane the rules for reimbursement and the more complicated the claim process, the easier it was to delay payment and the more likely customers would drop lengthy appeals for payment.

As Healtheon’s value tumbled to less than a hundredth of its peak value, in 1999 Clark merged the company with WebMD, an online medical company formed from the combination of several medical information web sites which had turned over only $US75,000 the previous year, and sold down his stockholding of Healtheon, telling reporters at the time: “I was naive — I’ll never invest in health care again.”

Ten years later, a reinvigorated WebMD is a billion-dollar company again, arguably the world’s most popular medical news web site for both consumers and health professionals, reportedly receiving 40 million visits a month as well as offering web-based services including online personal health records to users.

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Google have also entered this space, and thousands of patients are sharing their records electronically with providers, hospitals, pharmacies and general practices in dozens of countries, including Australia. Jim Clark, on the other hand, now spends most of his time building and sailing super-yachts and is perhaps best known in Australia as model Kristy Hinze’s boyfriend.

Clark had the right idea, but back in the last decade he was too far ahead of the curve to make it work. Now, however, e-health is an idea whose time has come.

“E-health is an idea whose time has not only come, it is overdue,” says Associate Professor Ron Tomlins, associate professor of general practice at the University of Sydney, who spent several years as chairman of the General Practice Computing Group.

Professor Tomlins said government and professional initiatives in Australia over the past 10 years that put computers, powerful software and broadband in practices have prepared a foundation that will enable GPs to harness the new online technologies that have been developing independently over the same period.

As more and more doctors turn to the Internet as a professional information source, more than 80% now report that the Internet is essential to their practice, according to research in the US by Manhattan Research. Consumers today, meanwhile, get more health information from the Internet than from their doctors, according to market research firm iCrossing.In Australia, trials of electronic health records and other online applications are under way in most states (see Case studies), while the Federal Government tries to set standards through the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) to ensure consistency, portability and security of records.

In Canada, the government has set a target of 50% of the population to have electronic personal health records by the end of 2009. In Australia, meanwhile, the government is “dragging the chain”, according to Professor Tomlins, with NEHTA recently announcing that it would be another 10 years before personal health records were in established use in Australia. Professor Tomlins said NEHTA is not moving fast enough, pointing out that it underspent its budget by almost $40 million last financial year.

“General practice is frustrated as hell in the lack of interest from the Commonwealth,” Professor Tomlins said. “The state governments are moving things along with projects such as Healthelink in NSW, SHER [shared electronic health records] and secure messaging projects in the Northern Territory and chronic health management programs in South Australia. But there’s a real danger that they won’t be interoperable and we will end up with a rail gauge situation.”

But regardless of that danger, Professor Tomlins says, the increase in data available to GPs puts them in a good position to use new technologies to improve patient care. “GPs have spent the past few years building up electronic databases for their practices,” according to Professor Tomlins. “Tools are now available to use that data to better understand how better care can be delivered to their patients. They can conduct clinical audits to mine that data, both clinical and financial, and benchmark themselves against other practices to find ways to improve the way care is delivered.

9 July 2008

None of our patients is as smart as all of our patients

Following is an excerpt from a story I wrote that has just been published in Australian Doctor:

It’s not just doctors who are sharing stories on the Internet. In the US, a plethora of sites lets patients post observations on their disease progress and management, and search for similar people and post comments, ask questions, form relationships, etc. Sites in this area include Daily Strength (www.dailystrength.org), Caring.com (www.caring.com) and Trusera (www.trusera.com).

The one getting the most publicity at the moment is PatientsLikeMe (www.patientslikeme.com), which boasts as members thousands of people with diseases such as mood disorders, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Founder David S Williams III says patients get more value from recording their health information when they share results with each another.

Williams says one of the most unexpected things that has happened on the site is the interaction springing from the comments members leave on each others’ profiles. “In many ways comments are not central to the site — forum and private messaging support more in-depth conversations.”But PatientsLikeMe has found that members read other people’s profiles to help them reach an informed person to ask advice and offer personally acquired knowledge to people who will benefit from it.

For patients who want to add a bit of expert advice to the mix, Organized Wisdom (www.organizedwisdom.com) offers a medical search service hand-crafted by ‘guides’ appointed by the site owners. The guides are a mixture of physicians and experienced web users. Sites such as DoublecheckMD (www.doublecheckmd.com) operate like consumer medicine information on steroids — they provide every possible adverse reaction, using natural language recognition to allow consumers to search medical texts and match symptoms with the drugs they’re on.

And of course no description of patient-centred Health 2.0 sites would be complete without mentioning doctor rating sites. One of the newest sites, Vitals.com (www.vitals.com), includes an algorithm extracted from physician peer reviews, while Xoova.com (www.xoova.com) offers a directory, ratings and online appointment bookings.

7 July 2008

Blog me liberty, or blog me death?

OK, everyone put on your blue facepaint and your best Scottish accent, and shout along with me, “The enemy may take our lives, but they will never take OUR FREEDOM!!” Thank goodness I live in a country where I have the freedom to write whatever I want in my blog (whether anyone reads it or not is another matter). Unlike Iran, where the parliament is debating a bill that adds blogging to the list of crimes punishable by execution. Well, that is, ”establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,” according to a post in ReadWriteWeb.

Blogging is apparently very popular in Iran, where a new generation of young people frequently challenge the old, hyper-conservative religious government (hmm, don’t read much about those young people in the press). The Committee to Protect Bloggers says that Iran is “among the worst offenders in terms of harassing, arresting and imprisoning bloggers, as well as students.”

ReadWriteWeb says it “condemn(s) the application of the death penalty to bloggers as itself an abhorent crime. Cultural relativism has its place, but this isn’t it. We want to offer our support to the new generation of Iranian young people struggling for freedom online and elsewhere, in any way we can, short of a US invasion of the country.” Hear, hear!

3 July 2008

Long Tail, or tall tale?

A story in the Wall Street Journal this week reviews an article by a Harvard marketing professor in the current issue of the Harvard Business Review which takes issue with the ‘Long Tail’ concept, which says the success of Internet e-commerce models hinges on the idea of selling a few of a lot of things, rather than a lot of a few things (think Amazon and the ability to obtain obscure titles you would never see in a best-seller driven bricks-and-mortar bookstore).

The Wall Street Journal article reports that the professor who wrote the articleand her research team ”looked at data for online video rentals and song purchases, and discovered that the patterns by which people shop online are essentially the same as the ones from offline. Not only do hits and blockbusters remain every bit as important online, but the evidence suggests that the Web is actually causing their role to grow, not shrink.”

Chris Anderson, former editor of Wired Magazine, who has made a new career out of coining the term and developing the Long Tail concept, has already responded to the article, saying much of the difference between his analysis and hers involved how hits and non-hits, or “head” and “tail” in the book’s lingo, are measured. Aside from that, he was generous in praising the article, and said he welcomed the sort of rigorous scrutiny the theory was getting.

3 July 2008

More on Google Health

In researching a feature I’ve been writing about Health 2.0 (more on that next week when it gets published), I’ve been looking into Google Health. While most commentators have focused on the commercial/social/medico-legal aspects of the world’s largest Internet company entering into the murky world of personal health records (PHRs), I came across some technical evaluations of the service. David Kibbe, writing in the Health 2.0 blog, discusses what sets Google Health apart from other online PHR services.

He writes: “Google Health beta makes it possible for machines to accept, read, and interpret one’s health data.  It is one thing to store health data on the Web as a pdf or Word text file, for example one’s immunizations or lab results, where they can be viewed. It is a giant leap forward to make the data both human and machine readable, so that they can be acted upon in some intelligent way by a remote server, kept up-to-date, and improved upon in terms of accuracy and relevance. That is what …Google Health beta achieves for the consumer that is really new and different; this is what HealthVault [Microsoft's PHR offering] and Dossia [a service set up by five big employer groups in the US including Wal-Mart and AT&T] are to date missing.

“Disruptive innovations are often considered simplistic and compared to toys when they first emerge (remember the first Apple computer?) and there is no stopping these developers and these partner companies from making their services more intelligent, more useful, and more convenient to the consumer.”

Take the time to read through the comments on the posting, which are quite interesting. Here’s an example: “As it is, Google PHR is a non-starter for any open-source advocate (“rapid design evolution” [which seems like marketing 2.0 speak] notwithstanding). Patients want options, not “disruptive” technologies. Again, more marketing-speak and hype. Sorry, but most real patients are a little wiser than that.”

2 July 2008

All ages and professions need to get with Web 2.0

This one is a couple of weeks old, but recently came to my attention. Richard Smith, ex-editor of the British Medical Journal, CEO of BMJ Publishing and now involved with open access journals, wrote a terrific blog on the BMJ about how doctors need to expose themselves to the world of Web 2.0/Health 2.0 and the possibilities it presents.

He writes, “Web 2.0 has the potential to improve global health greatly and to solve complex problems in health science. (However,) the barriers to these potential achievements are social and cultural, not technological.

“The machines we can fix. It’s the people – particularly old timers (that’s anybody over 40) – that are the problem.” Smith, who is 56, has some simple advice for his fellow old-timers. “The only way to really understand Web 2.0,” he says, “is to jump in and start using it.”

He recommends everyone sign up for Facebook and concludes, “The essence of Web 2.0 is that it’s bottom up and participative: it’s created by the many, not the few…. Doctors, I fear, are too fond of a top down world – because they are usually at the top. But that top down world is crumbling. Think of Nicolae Ceausescu’s statue being hauled down and smashed. That’s the old world of Web 1.0. Get with Web 2.0 in a serious way or become a yesterday’s person.”

1 July 2008

Technology with that human touch

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last week revealed that that home BP monitoring and transmission of results online to patients’ GPs resulted in a drastically improved blood pressure control among hypertensive patients.

However, the improvement was seen only in patients who also had a regular intervention from a pharmacist, who encouraged them and reinforced training on how to use the system; patients who performed home monitoring without the human intervention had no better results than the control group.

Another observation by the researchers was that the age range of participants was skewed because most of the elderly patients solicited for the study – the group that arguably would benefit the most from home monitoring – couldn’t participate because they didn’t have Internet access.

This is a good example of how people need to be carefully shown how a technology can help them before they can make good use of it. Those of us who have lived and breathed computers and applications for years need to remember that it’s not just about having the tools, it’s understanding how to use them.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,546 other followers