The following article appeared a few days ago.
Fed panel tips hat to Microsoft, Google, Dossia for advances in PHR use
By Diana Manos, Senior Editor 07/31/08
Microsoft, Google and Dossia have played a key role in advancing the use of personal health records, according to members of the American Health Information Community.
At a Tuesday AHIC meeting, members of the federal advisory panel hailed these three utility service models as "leading innovators," responsible for a major surge in the use of PHRs.
PHRs are a very dynamic market," said Nancy Davenport-Ennis, chairman of the AHIC Consumer Empowerment Workgroup."Today there are more than 200 solutions, some through independent systems, some through providers, employers and consumer-controlled groups. This is a great step forward from when AHIC started 23 meetings ago."
John Moore of Chilmark Research, a presenter at AHIC's meeting, said PHRs are used to control behavioral change in patients and lower healthcare costs. But obstacles remain – doctors are skeptical about their accuracy, and portability is "all over the map."
Moore said the utility service models, such as those provided by Dossia, Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, allow consumers to stay firmly in control of their records, and portability has been demonstrated.
"These groups are doing the heavy lifting that other groups can't do now," he said. "Adoption potential is high because the value is high."
Many more details here:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=9659
This seems to me to be adding onto the comments being made by a range of commentators that the concept of a physician held EHR is now morphing into or being enhanced by the patient increasingly taking control of their own information.
It seems to me virtually inevitable that over the next few years having a personal health record – independent of your doctor but having some input from them often – will become totally mainstream and as common as using electronic banking – especially for those with chronic health problems they need to manage.
Wait and see!
David.
4 comments:
Absolutely inevitable I'd say. We must however focus on solutions that use all or at the very least one of the major standards, that is ISO/TC 215, CEN/TC 251 and HL7. Without these all you're doing is creating a virtual filing cabinet online with no inter-operability and hence extremely limited clinical value if any at all.
Another important point is where the data is stored. It has to be here in Australia and be governed by domestic regulations. The last thing we want is a dubious American centric 'square' solution hammered into an Australian 'round' hole.
Isn't that what NEHTA and DOHA have planned for us all here in OZ?
Anyone who uses 'planned', NEHTA and DOHA in the same sentence is a very brave soul indeed, assuming you're not being sarcastic... in which case very funny!
When people use internet banking they go to the website of their bank to look at their data - which makes perfect sense because the bank has the definitive record of what is in their account. The bank is certainly not going to "trust" my PBR (personal banking record) that says I have 1 billion dollars.
I realise it's not as clear cut as when dealing with financial numbers, but why would I not go to my GP's website to look at my health data? I would hope that has a better chance of being accurate and trustworthy than some online record I've cobbled together myself?
(I would also note that the nature of the US health insurance market places a much higher imperative from a 'billing/claiming' point of view for patients to have their own centralised records - but I don't see that driver at all in the Australian market)
Post a Comment