Family Health Guy

While I appreciate the privacy issues associated with pre-existing emrs, perhaps the focus could be shifted to newly created emrs.

With an emphasis on early identification, education and the resulting intervention more individuals could be ushered into the emr age.

From my perspective, as a type 1 diabetic with 36 years managing a chronic illness, the healthvault platform makes great sense but many of the individuals I discuss this topic with are really in the dark.  Healthvault may not be as intuitive to others as it is to me.

Consumers (interchange with patients) are the ones ultimately accountable for their health.   If we don’t include them, we will miss this historic opportunity to create a new ‘platform’ for transforming care in innovative ways.

An innovative way would be a consumer/patient oriented demonstration vehicle for healthvault.  While the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente and Cleveland clinic partnerships are exciting, they are too big for the average consumer to wrap his or her hands around.

I understand that MSFT is looking to partner with healthcare industry leaders so that it might recapture it's healthcare investment but what about the individual patient?

Perhaps microsoft could segment it's heathvault approach into a "chronic illness" category.  The approach would focus on a target population, apply opportunistic one time screening (diabetes, hypertension, renal failure) and allow healthvault to capture the newly created data.  I would think that those with a newly discovered pre-diabetic condition or a newly discovered renal failure issue would jump right on board with heathvault to help them leverage technology in their individual case management stories.

joe coyle

jtc62@hotmail.com

Health care providers ( including me - a priamry care physician) are the custodians of patient information. It is their information and they need to own it. Health care in US has become more expensive and fragmented with poor outcomes for patients as the information does not travel with the patients, rather it stays in silos. With the result that tests get repeated. If the information was with the patient any provider anywhere in the country will know patient's history, prior tests, medications etc. so that patients can get timely and appropriate care.

Ha! I know it's been a couple of weeks since your post - and btw, thank you for hosting the terrific Connected Health Conference even before that - but I took my Harley in to be serviced today and realized that thanks to a good electronic records system it's getting better quality care than I do!

http://biotechbeachbum.com/2009/07/08/my-harley-and-my-health-record/

I disagree wholeheartedly with Dr. Chaudrhry's comment that health care providers own patient data.  Yes, they are custodians, but they no more 'own the data' than a bank 'owns' my money.   This distinction of who owns the money would not matter except in today's modern society, the patient is now the default custodian of his records - doctors at even the best medical centers (not to mention private practice) have a somewhat haphazard method of getting medical records to other care givers, usually a day late to do any good, and usually in a format that is nonstandard (where is the date on this evaluation?  Who is the patient).  It is a wonder that data doesn't go into the wrong patient file more often than it does.  

Yes, doctors should keep their own records, but it should be AUTOMATICALLY dispensed in full to the patient, no coy, secretive wording about the patient behind his back, nothing to hide, just patient data.   Openness will not cause more lawsuits, it will reduce them by increasing trust and decreasing suspicions of inadequate treatment.