Comments on: Google Health vs. HealthVault round 1 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/ My life and thoughts, often about FOSS in medicine Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:41:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Colin http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-1087 Colin Thu, 22 May 2008 22:31:33 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-1087 Nice comparison review. I hope you're planning a round 2 now that Google Health has been released to the public. Nice comparison review. I hope you’re planning a round 2 now that Google Health has been released to the public.

]]> By: ftrotter http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-651 ftrotter Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:25:36 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-651 John, Thanks for your comments. You wrote: "What is more meaningful to take in and expose to your readers is that Microsoft is providing a platform that many vendors and partners can write applications for." From what the Google folks are telling me, the Google Health is intended to be a platform too. That is exactly the term that Eric Schmidt spoke about at HIMSS. I have seen the demo of the application, and had as careful a look as any "outsider" I know of, from what I can tell it is obviously designed to be a platform. Google has already committed to releasing an API, just like HealthVault. As for Google not providing as compelling a platform as Microsoft, I cannot imagine a device maker that would work with Microsoft, but would not work with Google Health. Further, Google has been a market leader in creating web-platforms. The Microsoft guys have already commented on my comments regarding proprietary XML vs CCD, and until I have had a better chance to look at their implementation I will not comment on it further. If you (and Microsoft) are correct, I will update my current review. As for commenting too soon, I completely disagree with you. Carefully commenting at this stage might help shape the policies for both Microsoft and Google, which will ultimately impact how the industry is regulated etc etc. Now seems like the perfect time to make noise. -FT John,
Thanks for your comments. You wrote:

“What is more meaningful to take in and expose to your readers is that Microsoft is providing a platform that many vendors and partners can write applications for.”

From what the Google folks are telling me, the Google Health is intended to be a platform too. That is exactly the term that Eric Schmidt spoke about at HIMSS. I have seen the demo of the application, and had as careful a look as any “outsider” I know of, from what I can tell it is obviously designed to be a platform. Google has already committed to releasing an API, just like HealthVault.

As for Google not providing as compelling a platform as Microsoft, I cannot imagine a device maker that would work with Microsoft, but would not work with Google Health. Further, Google has been a market leader in creating web-platforms.

The Microsoft guys have already commented on my comments regarding proprietary XML vs CCD, and until I have had a better chance to look at their implementation I will not comment on it further. If you (and Microsoft) are correct, I will update my current review.

As for commenting too soon, I completely disagree with you. Carefully commenting at this stage might help shape the policies for both Microsoft and Google, which will ultimately impact how the industry is regulated etc etc. Now seems like the perfect time to make noise.

-FT

]]> By: John Theisen http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-650 John Theisen Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:41:46 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-650 While I'm not totally familiar with what Google is doing now, I do know enough about what Microsoft is attempting to provide with their HealthVault platform. Microsoft's strategy may be the tortoise to Google's hare. While there might be what you're calling flaws in the security model, which I disagree with, those can be addressed. What is more meaningful to take in and expose to your readers is that Microsoft is providing a platform that many vendors and partners can write applications for. The initial applications are not as compelling as you would hope for, but then again this is a new area where applications for Consumer driven Healthcare are new to the block. Microsoft has relationships with a great many device vendors which means that consumers can actively participate in the collection of their own healthcare data. In order for Google to do the same thing they are going to have to provide tools that allow the devices to upload data, or like the earlier versions of Google Health (just let the patients type it into a free format text box). Doctors that I've talked to are highly against consuming data from patients that has not been vetted in some way. For that part of the eco-system I think that Microsoft has provided a better platform. Also, I wouldn't focus too much on Google or Microsoft support for CCR/CCD (incidently you CAN import/export both in HealthVault). Current EMR vendors only have CCR/CCD support minimally and you still have the big problem of document versioning that you'll need to expose to the consumer. Which clinic and which CCD is most up to date? Should I overwrite the one in Google Health/HealthVault? How do I update only the blood pressure part of the CCD and what applications have the rights to do so on my behalf? I think that this comparison between the two platforms is irrelevant. Google has an entirely different mission and objective than Microsoft does. Until both platforms have more time for adoption and flushing out, I don't see that it makes sense to say, Google wins here, Microsoft is broken here, etc... While I’m not totally familiar with what Google is doing now, I do know enough about what Microsoft is attempting to provide with their HealthVault platform. Microsoft’s strategy may be the tortoise to Google’s hare. While there might be what you’re calling flaws in the security model, which I disagree with, those can be addressed. What is more meaningful to take in and expose to your readers is that Microsoft is providing a platform that many vendors and partners can write applications for. The initial applications are not as compelling as you would hope for, but then again this is a new area where applications for Consumer driven Healthcare are new to the block. Microsoft has relationships with a great many device vendors which means that consumers can actively participate in the collection of their own healthcare data. In order for Google to do the same thing they are going to have to provide tools that allow the devices to upload data, or like the earlier versions of Google Health (just let the patients type it into a free format text box). Doctors that I’ve talked to are highly against consuming data from patients that has not been vetted in some way. For that part of the eco-system I think that Microsoft has provided a better platform.

Also, I wouldn’t focus too much on Google or Microsoft support for CCR/CCD (incidently you CAN import/export both in HealthVault). Current EMR vendors only have CCR/CCD support minimally and you still have the big problem of document versioning that you’ll need to expose to the consumer. Which clinic and which CCD is most up to date? Should I overwrite the one in Google Health/HealthVault? How do I update only the blood pressure part of the CCD and what applications have the rights to do so on my behalf?

I think that this comparison between the two platforms is irrelevant. Google has an entirely different mission and objective than Microsoft does. Until both platforms have more time for adoption and flushing out, I don’t see that it makes sense to say, Google wins here, Microsoft is broken here, etc…

]]> By: Sean Nolan http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-643 Sean Nolan Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:20:26 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-643 Fred -- your analysis has some major factual errors, in particular around the HealthVault security model. I've responded in depth at http://www.familyhealthguy.com/2008/03/sharing-data-with-healthvault.html ... please take a look. Thanks. ---S Fred — your analysis has some major factual errors, in particular around the HealthVault security model. I’ve responded in depth at http://www.familyhealthguy.com/2008/03/sharing-data-with-healthvault.html … please take a look. Thanks. —S

]]>