Google To Use Patient Data To Develop Healthcare Algorithms for Hospital Chain (theverge.com) 46
Google has made a deal for access to patient records from HCA, which which operates 181 hospitals and more than 2,000 healthcare sites in 21 states, so the tech company can develop healthcare algorithms, The Wall Street Journal reports. The Verge: Google will store anonymized data from patient health records and internet-connected medical devices. That data will be used to build programs that could inform medical decisions made by doctors. The deal is described as "multiyear" by the WSJ, without specifying how many years. As health records moved online over the past few years, hospitals and tech companies jumped at opportunities to take advantage of the glut of digitized medical information collected at each doctor's visit.
Microsoft and Amazon also have deals with hospitals to analyze their patient information. Google previously partnered with healthcare system Ascension to gather patient records in a secretive project called "Project Nightingale." The company was criticized for starting in on the project without disclosing the work to patients and doctors. HCA is a major win for Google, since its facilities handle 5 percent of the hospital services provided in the US -- around 30 million patient interactions each year.
Microsoft and Amazon also have deals with hospitals to analyze their patient information. Google previously partnered with healthcare system Ascension to gather patient records in a secretive project called "Project Nightingale." The company was criticized for starting in on the project without disclosing the work to patients and doctors. HCA is a major win for Google, since its facilities handle 5 percent of the hospital services provided in the US -- around 30 million patient interactions each year.
No Thanks Google1984 (Score:4)
Keep your mitts off my data.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but I suspect you won't be given a choice, much less notified your data is being used and/or sold out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should be modded insightful, funny, and sad. Very sad.
But PROFIT!
Re: (Score:1)
When will people learn that data yearns to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "your" data. It's anonymized and likely aggragated data from nameless patients. None of it can be tied to you in any way - at that point it has ceased to become "yours" and is really just a decription of services that the hospital has provided over the course of several years to its customers.
I bet you work for Google! Why else would you post AC? Don't have the guts to stand behind what you almost certainly know to be a shamefully simplistic line of utterly naive bullshit? I suppose you could be trolling instead of merely shilling, but your post demonstrates that sledge-hammer-like subtlety that I've come to associate with those who get paid to sell out their fellow humans.
When will people learn that data yearns to be free.
When will you learn that data is not even alive, much less sentient, and doesn't "yearn" for shit?
Re: No Thanks Google1984 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, you wish
"Mr Buttle, it appears you are having a Heart Attack. Due to unsubstantiated accusations of Wrong Think from unappointed and unregulated special interest groups who would cease to exist if they ever ran out of people to slander, your account has been suspended and our privatized ambulance service cannot be dispatched until billing has been restored. Your primary insurance provider has been notified of your new medical status as per our existing agreements that you in no way benefit from dictate.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha Ha ha (Score:3)
Just how "anonymized" is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
HIPAA has a standard for de-identification of data.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to find the violation first. Then Google has the lawyers to drag it all out and fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Google would not be on the hook for anything. They have no obligation to protect your health information. HIPAA applies to health care providers and insurers The onus would be on the health care providers to ensure that the data is de-identified before sending it to Google.
Wrong, Google would be on the HIPAA hook (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They only need such an agreement if the outside contractor is handling 'individually identifiable' health information. Since Google is supposed to be getting de-identified information they would be fools to sign such a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that Google can easily de-anonymize that data using other data they already have.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Just how "anonymized" is it? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that the anonymization is helped by the fact that most of the data would have to be anonymized from all sources. Since almost all of your info is subject to privacy laws, it should be difficult to target a specific individual (conversely, Amazon and Facebook probably have enough information about you to create Google advertising criteria that match only you).
I kind of like the idea though, since the back box nature of the findings might allow better treatment when apparently-unrelated conditions coi
Routine functions of experts (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of very skilled professionals have a large portion of their work that is 'routine'. Medical diagnostics are no different.
I worked at a firm that made MRI/CAT/Xray software back in the day. We got a fair bit into automatic anomaly detection... We had partnerships with several universities that did studies. At that time, we were getting about 85% accuracy relative to some of the best radiologists in terms of breast cancer detection. I can only imagine other firms are in the 95% range now.
In all kinds of medical fields, doctors tend to follow a process or not that is actually pretty routine. Patient comes in with some symptoms, doctor orders tests, tests lead to more information, more tests... diagnosis/treatment is the outcome.
Just to give a trivial example. I have fairly minor hypothyroidism. I've been taking pills for it for a long time now. Every year, I go get a blood test. The test results come back with a recommended dosage for me. That's what my doctor prescribes me. Could this whole system be automated so it barely involved the doctor for 95% of cases and people like me? absolutely.
This doesn't mean getting rid of the doctor. It could just mean everything is automated and just waits sign off from the doctor or a nurse or other medical professional can oversee it.
Like all things, people can sometimes 'see' things that are not part of the automated system. They can sometimes perform better than machines, but for the average person on the average day with the average illness, the machines will do a good enough job and more reliable.
Software is no different. I remember the first time it happened to me. I worked in telecom for a while. I was really good at investigating and resolving customer issues. Eventually I worked on scripting some log parsers which did so much of my work, which could then be done by lower level support staff and point them to the right area. Trivial stuff, but you get the point. Something that seems like magic to someone outside the field can in reality be turned into a pretty systemic workflow.
Note, nowhere do I say we need to devalue the work of experts (myself included). Oversight is always needed. Knowledge retention is always needed. Updating the automation is always needed. Attracting the next generation is always needed. Expertise beyond the system is always needed.
But bringing this type of system to healthcare will probably have more benefits than downsides. Providing more equitable and consistent healthcare. Suppose a doctor is just in a rush as all people do and you happen to be a patient that day. Based on your symptoms/history, the average thing to do is to order some test. This doctor under normal circumstances wants to just shrug you away. But the system suggests to the doctor that they should order the test.
probably have more benefits? (Score:2)
You're just hoping. The details
could mean anything. I posit that if HCA reckons that the scheme will benefit them, that means they think that it will save them money, which at the end of the day means degraded healthcare. And a ream of "but the computer said so" BS.
Re: (Score:2)
How does 'saving money' automatically mean 'degraded healthcare'? If that is true, then 'spending more money' must mean 'better health care'.
Re: (Score:2)
How does 'saving money' automatically mean 'degraded healthcare'?
If the money saved comes from computers putting flesh-and-blood doctors out of work, I'm pretty sure that would qualify as 'degraded healthcare'.
OTOH, if the money is saved by getting rid of parasites such as HMO's and private health insurers, and implementing universal healthcare, then that would qualify as improved healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to consider that if a doctor is not wasting time on my routine easy to automate hypothyroidism, they could better spend their time on patients with actual issues.
Re: (Score:2)
"This doesn't mean getting rid of the doctor. It could just mean everything is automated and just waits sign off from the doctor or a nurse or other medical professional can oversee it."
If you've ever looked at what's actually in your EHR, you'll see that the system you are proposing just means they will sign off automatically, and hence it is a no-op. EHR's are full of claims that stuff was done which actually was not done, and the reason is that the EHR automatically enters info unless the provider says
Inform medical decisions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does HIPAA have any teeth? (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. HIPAA has a standard for de-identification. Once that is followed, the information is no longer protected.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-... [hhs.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, no. That shows it is 'trivially easy' to CREATE an identfier. But there is nothing wrong with that. Now, please show how it is 'trivially easy' to tie that CREATED identity to the actual person (by name), without using any of the stuff removed by de-identification. HIPAA is concerned with 'personally identifiable' infomation, not information about an unknown individual.
Hospital Data Quality is Crap. (Score:2)
While Most Hospitals have Electronic Medical Records, for the most part the data on them is crap. A lot of Doctors hate using the EMR to enter data, grumble at every time they need to click, and bitch if IT shows them the shortcut, because they have to learn something new. So most doctors, create their Encounter Sheets, write on it free from, and hand that paper to their staff to enter in the system at the end of the day, where the staff wants to go home too.
So the bare minimum data is entered in the sy
and if the supreme court make pre existing conditi (Score:2)
if the supreme court makes pre existing conditions come back then this data will have an really good use.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the zeal. (Score:2)
Google will store anonymized data from patient health records and internet-connected medical devices.
Wow. There's a sentence that should pucker a lot of butts around here. Too bad we're still gonna have people pushing Android phones tomorrow.
OMG (Score:2)
Machines identifying illness is good (Score:1)
If we don't start feeing massive amounts of (anonymized) data into machine learning, then we're going to miss out on a future of diagnosis for rare diseases, quick identification of emerging diseases, robust symptom attribution, etc. We'll be stuck searching the Internet for random symptoms (that all seem to lead to a cancer diagnosis).
I'm not saying Google is the best company to do this, but I'd rather have them do this than have it not happen at all in our lifetime.
Where's the headline that says... (Score:2)
Ask your doctor if marijuana is right for you (Score:2)
I don't think I've been to an HCA facility (Score:2)
But I obviously need to check. If I have, then it's time to have a lawyer letter written to HCA and Google, to find out if they've violated my HIPAA rights. If so, I get to sue....
HCA? (Score:2)
HCA has a simple algorithm. It's called "show me the money."