You know my views on Deborah Peel. I just have to say that she has really crossed the line here. Pulling the race card? This is NOTHING like Tuskegee. It is a fact that diseases affect different races differently. We cannot change this at this point in time. Research on Type II diabetes will help those more commonly affected MORE than others. She would deny them this benefit? Because of misplaced concerns over privacy? This is truly a distorted view and she needs to take a few deep breaths, get over herself, and try to see the bigger picture.

Marian

“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

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…

ClearHealth has a pretty strict trademark policy, as you have stated. I would like to do something more friendly with MirrorMed, but the concern would be trademark-dilution. If someone is really interested in using the MirrorMed trademark I will probably come up with a better was to handle the dilution issue.

As for the development style of the various communities: OpenEMR is a very approachable community, probably the best project in that particular regard. ClearHealth and MirrorMed should open up, but from a business perspective, both companies are more interested in ensuring good products for our own customers, than working with a community that generates only infrequent patches.

If you have a serious code-contribution that you feel is being overlooked, let me know and I will see what I can do.

-FT

Just because she effectively answered some my complaints does not mean I fully endorse everything that she says. One of the posts that I have not mentioned is my “devil is in the details” post, that discusses why real privacy is such a complex issue.

Hopefully Dr. Peel will be willing to continue engaging with me privately and if she does, I will definitely bring up your concerns. You are not the first privacy professional to share this opinion with me, and I think what Dr. Peel might need to hear is that exoneration might also be found in the details that she views from 10000 ft.

Broad brush strokes will only go so far….

-FT

She doesn’t make a case by logic, but is all about trying to evoke an emotional response about the “shocking” lack of privacy. She presents accusations as fact, without support, attribution or evidence. She quotes people out of context and in ways opposed to their original intent.

I am a security professional very concerned about the privacy and security of people’s health information. I actually work at this professionally every day and fully understand the issues involved, unlike Deborah Peel. What she is promoting is not what most Americans want (she provides NO empirical evidence that they do) and not consistent with how Americans choose to run their personal affairs.

I was in the audience yesterday and it can’t have escaped your notice that the auditorium HIMSS provided could have held over 1000 people. But it was less than 1/4 full, with many people leaving while the talk was in progress. This should certainly be an indication that she has fundamentally mis-read the climate of public opinion on this issue.