More Active Posts
Front Page
Dr. Google is in
 |
 8 Comments |
Well, it’s official: Google has launched its beta program for Google Health, a new web-based program that enables users to organize health information in one place, including medical records from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies.
U.S. News and World Report’s David LaGesse is excited about the new technology, and he doesn’t seem too concerned about trusting Google with his medical history privacy: “As a consumer, I could stomach what seem like small risks to my privacy for the sake of convenience. I’d at least like the option.”
But what about you: Is greater convenience and accessibility worth the potential impact on your privacy? Do you even care about such privacy? And is this a program you foresee yourself using in the future?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
There will be privacy lapses, but nothing intentional. The penalties for violating provacy laws are so severe that there’s no potential benefit which would outweigh the risk.
The Single Medical Record is coming fast, and is probably a good thing. Putting people in charge of their own health care will help with both of America’s medical crises: funding and professional liability.
After we moved to Kentucky last summer, I needed to see an internist last winter. I had already gotten copies of my records before leaving Atlanta. He was shocked to see that I had them with me, and I was shocked to see that he took the time to read them right there and ask pertinent questions.
If something like Google Health makes that easier, then I’m cautiously for it. It’s not as though I have a condition that I’m trying to hide that would keep me from employment or insurance, so a breach would rank lower to me than my financial information being stolen/exposed.
StuBob,
What’s the rule on letting a patient have a copy of her own records when leaving a practice. I was denied once, and I just wondered if I could have demanded them. On one hand, they are about me, and would seem to be mine; on the other hand, they are the product of the doctor’s office. They were willing to send them directly to my new doctor, but they would not give me a copy instead or in addition.
Interesting question. Basically, the information in a medical record belongs to the patient. The paper belongs to the doctor (practice, hospital, whatever). What that means is that you’re always entitled to a copy and you can always look to see what’s there, but you can’t have the original to keep.
AFAIK, nobody knows how this will play out with electronic records. Do I have the perpetual right to unfettered access to notes I wrote, even though there’s no hard copy?
Thanks! That’s pretty much what I thought, but I didn’t want to push it–the woman who said no is a personal friend of mine, so I didn’t want to make a big deal of it, even though I was pretty sure I was entitled to a copy.
I left out a detail: You’re entitled to a copy, but not a free copy.
This will be fine until Google starts buying insurance companies AS THEY TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!! Mwahahahahha
Seriously though, to make money will they display ads for prescriptions based on your entered medical info?
I don’t need Google to run my life for me.
4-
Some friend to deny you your right to your own medical record. She should have known better.