Rx For Protecting Online Health Records

by Michael on July 3, 2008

in Health insurance

Before we get to the article appearing via the Associated Press a few days ago regarding privacy issues, let me tell you that the product from Google where a person can do this is located at www.google.com/health. As far as I can tell, the service is without charge.

Privacy is important. I am a big believer in it. But I have to tell you that working in the insurance field, I do not have a lot of confidence that any of us have any, HIPPA not withstanding. We have a good percentage of medical records being transcribed overseas, and if anyone can tell me how privacy is enforced in a third world country, I’ll buy you a lollipop!

So that being said, it appears to me that GOOGLE has taken steps that at least equal any other expectations we may have of privacy, and quite possibly exceed them.

That being said, it’s very possible that this information, being readily available, could just save a person’s life.

And with that thought, here is the article that came from the Associated Press:

Associated Press –

Jun. 25: Hoping to persuade more people to store their medical records online, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and a hodgepodge of health care providers and insurers have agreed on ground rules for protecting the privacy of the sensitive information.

The guidelines unveiled Wednesday are designed to reassure patients that they can enjoy the convenience of keeping their medical histories in online filing cabinets without worrying that outsiders will be able to peruse the data.

The privacy concerns have become more acute during the past eight months as both Google and Microsoft two of the world’s most powerful technology companies have introduced Internet storage services for personal health records, or PHRs.

Like other companies outside the traditional health care industry, neither Google nor Microsoft are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. The 12-year-old federal law set strict rules for shielding medical records from unwelcome eyes.

That vulnerability has caused some privacy watchdogs to warn that patients with electronic PHRs could be unwittingly making it easier for the government, a legal adversary or a marketing concern to obtain their medical information.

The new “Connecting For Health” guidelines aim to give electronic PHRs at least the same level of protection already governing medical records on paper. The electronic rules also call for patients to be notified in a “timely way” if their medical information is released by mistake, computer hacking or other mischief.

The Markle Foundation, which has been focusing on ways to use technology to improve health care, cobbled together the guidelines during the past 18 months with help from more than 40 companies and trade groups with a stake in the outcome.

“This is really an exemplary framework,” said Steve Findlay, health care analyst for Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. “I think it will enhance the trust in consumers over the next few years.”

Representatives for Google, Microsoft and two other technology companies, Intuit Inc. and WebMD Health Corp., said they didn’t have to make any significant changes to their existing policies to comply with Markle’s privacy framework.

Others supporting the guidelines include Aetna Inc., America’s Health Insurance Plans, BlueCross BlueShield Association and the American Medical Association.

By keeping their medical histories online, patients theoretically will have more control over the information and be able to share the data more easily with a doctor if they move from one place to another.

But the concept has been slow to take off. About 6.1 million adults in the United States currently have electronic PHRs, according to estimates from the Markle Foundation.

“Consumer demand for (PHRs) and online health services will take off when consumers trust that personal information will be protected,” said Zoe Baird, Markle’s president.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: