HealthContentAdvisors

Archive for the ‘Google Health’ Category

PHR Standards Big Step Forward

• Posted June 26th 2008
• Comments (0)
• by Janice

While privacy concerns remain a deterrent to the adoption of personal healthcare records (PHRs), a lack of standards may be an even stronger one. Consumers don’t like to expend time and money on new technology that can’t easily synch up with other devices or content (certainly you remember “Betamax”?).

To help overcome both concerns, the Markle Foundation has just published a set of practices for handling PHR information in Connecting for Health Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information.  The framework was developed with a workgroup that included payers, providers, health IT vendors, healthcare publishers and advocates, physician organizations and policy analysts.  The group includes Google Health, Microsoft, Intuit, WebMD, Revolution Health, Aetna, AARP, Kaiser Permanente, BCBS, Consumers Union, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dossia, Ingenix, Cisco, and others.  (See the complete list in the press release: www.connectingforhealth.org/news/pressrealease_062508.html.)

The publishing industry has a dismal record of developing standards that facilitate data exchange. That’s why it is important to note that the complete report includes seven sections on technology standards and requirements along with nine sections on policy issues.  In consumer health care publishing, policymakers and technology companies play important roles, so perhaps they will push content providers to create and adopt standards. In the section of the report titled, An Architecture for Consumer Participation, the importance of portability and interoperability of the PHR is emphasized:

For PHRs to become more universally useful to consumers, they must provide a convenient and secure means of connecting to personal data and interactive services from multiple sources, and they must provide a convenient and secure means of moving the data out of the PHR as well, in whole or in part.[1]

At last year’s Health Content07 conference, there was a wide divergence of opinion about how long it will take before PHRs become mainstream. The Technology Overview section of the Markle report depicts how “health care entities and consumer technology innovators operate under different cultures that can clash without basic rules of the road“.  The technology standards and policy principles laid out in the Connecting for Health framework are a first step towards overcoming the hurdles on the road to adoption of PHRs.  However, according to recent research also reported by the Markle Foundation, only about 2.7 percent of the population they surveyed are using PHRs. The question of how quickly consumers will adopt PHRs is clearly still open for debate. 

---

[1] Connecting for Health Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information, The Markle Foundation, www.connectingforhealth.org/license.html, section CT7, An Architecture for Consumer Participation, page 4, June 2008. 

 

Google Health’s Unfinished Content Strategy

• Posted June 2nd 2008
• Comment (1)
• by Janice

 One thinks of search when one thinks of Google.  Since the early version of Google Health that was just released in Beta is focused not on search or content but on  interoperability and security for its personal health records (PHR) platform, it is difficult to quickly size up the opportunities. There are a few content companies among the early partnerships, including HealthGrades, Praxeon, and ADAM.  HealthGrades and ADAM are integrated into the main Google Health page, and Praxeon is a services partner that offers personalized content based on a user’s profile via its MyDailyApple service. 

The prime benefits for content partners appear to be the association with Google and visibility in the list of member services for Google Health.  As pointed out in our earlier entry, a user has to choose to sign up with your service and take added steps to register.  Unless the user takes these steps, the only benefit a member services partner receives is brand recognition for being listed among the other services that have been approved to be included in Google Health. Granted, being associated with Google is not a minor benefit (see Dr. Bob Wachter’s paeon to Google and Google Health, in which he states that companies like Walgreens “can’t put a monetary value on the “cool” value of teaming up with Google“). 

On the other hand, if users register for your service via Google Health, you receive  leads that can be upsold to your direct services, either advertising, paid subscriptions or some other revenue model.

Note that it takes work to become a Google Health partner.  Mount Tabor Online Services, a specialized IT services firm, has found a niche in helping potential partner companies navigate the technical hurdles and other issues related to becoming an approved member services partner.  In their own words, “Mount Tabor can help with secure hosting, technical support for functions involving data normalization and data exchange, and strategic guidance related to application development, integration, deployment and operation“.

It will also take patience to wait for a return on investment.  The adoption cycle for PHRs is likely to be slow and the value of a PHR is largely dependent on the adoption of electronic medical records by provider organizations.

Given these hurdles for participating and the limited returns, I find it puzzling that Google only allowed a limited number of member services partners to distribute press releases promoting their partnership.  Among them, none were content partners.  At this stage, it appears that Google may not have a content strategy for Google Health because they are so focused on developing their platform for exchanging information.  There are inklings of how users will be guided to more in-depth information (links on right-hand column display related results from Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Groups), but the existing content elements of Google Health look like a placeholder for a more developed content strategy to come.

 

Google’s Personal Health Record Platform

• Posted May 20th 2008
• Comments (2)
• by Janice

 The long-awaited release of Google Health (in Beta of course) makes it clear that there is a race on between Google and Microsoft to gain traction and share in the emerging market for personal health records (PHRs). 

At Health Content Advisors, we have shifted our view of the relevancy of PHRs to publishers of health content.  Previously, we tended to think that electronic health records were an IT utility for record-keeping and that they would take time to be adopted by a significant portion of consumers.  Yes, publishers should be cognizant of the need to integrate their content with electronic medical records and PHRs, but more timely opportunities seemed to exist in the creation of standalone applications for researching healthcare information.   We now view PHRs as a logical structure and filtering tool for health-related research and information seeking.  Even if users don’t register and import or input data into secure (one hopes) online sites, the architecture of a personal health record is a sensible one for designing a healthcare information portal. 

Google Health requires that users set up a profile that includes age, sex, height, conditions, medications, test results and more before allowing access to the specialized online health services included in Google Health (health topics from ADAM are the exception).  I for one will not be entering this information exchange bargain with Google, but I know that I guard my privacy more highly than some others.  Google is offering added privacy protection measures and will not allow advertising on Google Health, but it has said that it will aggregate anonymized content from Google Health to create trend data and other statistics that can be monetized via online ads or other means.

When viewed as a content service, Google Health sets the registration bar extremely high: imagine other content sites asking for such personal information before they allowed users to view content.  Not many users would complete the registration process.  However, when viewed as a utility for storing personal health information-and a utility that is promoted by one’s medical provider/institution–the same content becomes a beneficial value-added service.  But, in either case, Google is dependent on a high level of trust from users.  

Google doesn’t think small.  As Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch says, Google Health is “a platform” and they are striving to be the most popular platform for personal electronic health records.  We applaud Google for establishing a sound foundational architecture for personal health content and for bringing order to the scattered world of online health content. However, we have some issues with the conditions that are set for accessing the content.

(This is the first in a series of posts on GH.  Our next post will focus on content, search and content partners.)