Comments on: Google Health vs. HealthVault round 1 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/ Hacktivist, coding for social change Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:19:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: ftrotter http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5989 ftrotter Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:07:19 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-5989 Ill think about it... Ill think about it…

]]> By: Roe http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5928 Roe Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:58:51 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-5928 Id love to see you do a similar writeup on google health, dossia, and MSHV now that theyve been around for a while. Id love to see you do a similar writeup on google health, dossia, and MSHV now that theyve been around for a while.

]]> By: Fred Trotter » HealthVault team responds to security model criticism. http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5398 Fred Trotter » HealthVault team responds to security model criticism. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:52:14 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-5398 [...] have updated the post in question to correct the errors that I had made. However, even with the correction made I still think the [...] [...] have updated the post in question to correct the errors that I had made. However, even with the correction made I still think the [...]

]]> By: Didier Thizy http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5362 Didier Thizy Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:48:59 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-5362 "HealthVault has released its own XML specification. While they have promised to promise not to sue the pants of people like me who decide to use those specifications, creating a “new standard” in the healthcare space is regrettable step backwards." Agreed. It's surprising actually how many people in the industry believe HealthVault has full CCD support though, due in part to Microsoft's past comments. My colleague has written a good analysis on the Healthvault's creative interpretation of "CCD support" at http://softwarepmp.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-microsoft-support-ccd.html “HealthVault has released its own XML specification. While they have promised to promise not to sue the pants of people like me who decide to use those specifications, creating a “new standard” in the healthcare space is regrettable step backwards.”

Agreed. It’s surprising actually how many people in the industry believe HealthVault has full CCD support though, due in part to Microsoft’s past comments. My colleague has written a good analysis on the Healthvault’s creative interpretation of “CCD support” at http://softwarepmp.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-microsoft-support-ccd.html

]]> By: Dell Anderson http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5360 Dell Anderson Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:19:17 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-5360 For the record, I like MSFT's OpenID login, However has anyone else had a problem with Health Vault data accuracy? I tried to enter an approximate date for a family member's condition 'start date' as 2007. It showed up presumably due to data type error as '1900'. So I deleted the reference entirely. It disappeared from the results. I then added it back by selecting an exact date from the calendar control/applet (Choosing July 14, 2007). It showed up again as '1900'. If MSFT cannot even accurately record and remember dates, I have decided not to trust ANYTHING on Health Vault. Recently checked Google Health and it appears to be winning the intuitive and interoperability race. I think MSFT may be missing the boat to rely on high end device requiring application driver software etc. This is so 1990's. For the record, I like MSFT’s OpenID login, However has anyone else had a problem with Health Vault data accuracy? I tried to enter an approximate date for a family member’s condition ’start date’ as 2007. It showed up presumably due to data type error as ‘1900′. So I deleted the reference entirely. It disappeared from the results. I then added it back by selecting an exact date from the calendar control/applet (Choosing July 14, 2007). It showed up again as ‘1900′. If MSFT cannot even accurately record and remember dates, I have decided not to trust ANYTHING on Health Vault.

Recently checked Google Health and it appears to be winning the intuitive and interoperability race.

I think MSFT may be missing the boat to rely on high end device requiring application driver software etc. This is so 1990’s.

]]> By: Eric http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-1/#comment-2263 Eric Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:28:28 +0000 http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/#comment-2263 I went to sign up for MS Health Vault, but decided against it after encountering their inane password strength policy. Demanding that a user not use their password of choice and instead adopt a new one containing no common words and a mixture of digits and punctuation, leads to that new, difficult to remember password being written down on paper or saved in a non-secure system (e-mail, Word document). Let me manage my my personal security the way I see fit. I went to sign up for MS Health Vault, but decided against it after encountering their inane password strength policy. Demanding that a user not use their password of choice and instead adopt a new one containing no common words and a mixture of digits and punctuation, leads to that new, difficult to remember password being written down on paper or saved in a non-secure system (e-mail, Word document). Let me manage my my personal security the way I see fit.

]]> By: Colin http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/03/04/google-health-vs-healthvault-round-1/comment-page-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-page-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-page-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-page-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

]]>