Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks” • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#101

Post by aestra » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:02 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #6

Healthcare is heavily regulated, and I understand why some companies would be reluctant to branch out into it. But that doesn't mean the privacy and legal concerns surrounding HIPAA regulations are unwarranted. Yea, it would be nice if we lived in an ethical utopia where we wouldn't have to feel worried about people looking through our health records. But we don't. I would not feel comfortable with my health records…

It isn't just regulation, it is healthcare practically can't be entered in because of the established players and systems.

Please read this

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.blake.ht...

Guy made a company Retractable Technologies and made medical devices that prevented infections and saved lives. Hospitals won't buy it because of the system.

Which happened partly due to regulation.

This might also be of interest

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/health/exploring-salines-s...

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#102

Post by rwallace » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:04 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #94

mcculley wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. The illiquidity is why different healthcare specialists can't share data about me without resorting to a ten finger interface that leads to transcription errors. I want my general practitioner and my spine specialist to be using the same database for records, test, and scans. I'm okay with being embarrassed if it means living longer and better.

I wish I believed we could make a database shared between my GP and my spine specialist without my records also being shared with all insurers, employers, marketing companies, security services, medical researchers, credit rating agencies, and anyone who slips any hospital employee a hundred bucks.

So do I, but given the world as it is, wouldn't you much prefer some idiot marketing guy spamming you on the basis of your medical records, than a screwup in the chain of communication between your GP and spine specialist leaving you crippled or dead?

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#103

Post by harryh » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:06 PM UTC

mcculley wrote: post #90

rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'm okay with health data being illiquid. Everyone should be absolutely terrified of this data getting into the hands of the same people that try to predict if you are pregnant to sell you crap, or use your credit history or Facebook posts to deny you a job. The future in that direction is "Google Gattaca."

I'm not. The illiquidity is why different healthcare specialists can't share data about me without resorting to a ten finger interface that leads to transcription errors. I want my general practitioner and my spine specialist to be using the same database for records, test, and scans. I'm okay with being embarrassed if it means living longer and better.

I don't think rayiner is worried about being embarrassed, he's worried about (for example) not getting a job one day because his private health information has made its way into the hands of a potential employer.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#104

Post by fotbr » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:07 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #64

justinph wrote: post #8

When you fuck up in health, people can die. Regulation exists for a reason.

Right, but unless you fuck up pretty badly software is not going to kill a patient directly (barring, say, pacemaker software). We had to do a risk analysis review recently, and figured that unless you physically dropped one of our servers onto a patient you couldn't directly cause harm. Anyways, you'd be a lot less concerned with regulation if you knew how brainfucked and unscientific the whole field of medicine see…

It does happen. I refer you to the Therac-25.

http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/professionalism/Therac_25/Therac_1....

plenty of other reading: https://www.google.com/#q=therac-25

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#105

Post by Multics » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:13 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #87

Multics wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this? Or, what is 'this'? The answer being. 1) Quite an abstract question 2) A pronoun It's relevant. It's the conclusion that's concerning! Again. 'Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.'

- deleted - I apologize about this thread.

Why delete a comment I mostly quoted? Seems like an attempt at gamesmanship.

Well, c'est la vie!

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#106

Post by jerf » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:14 PM UTC

rwallace wrote: post #102

michaelt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I believed we could make a database shared between my GP and my spine specialist without my records also being shared with all insurers, employers, marketing companies, security services, medical researchers, credit rating agencies, and anyone who slips any hospital employee a hundred bucks.

So do I, but given the world as it is, wouldn't you much prefer some idiot marketing guy spamming you on the basis of your medical records, than a screwup in the chain of communication between your GP and spine specialist leaving you crippled or dead?

Yes, of course. But "idiot marketing guy" isn't the worst case scenario, nor is it even the worst plausible scenario. Job loss and inability to get health insurance aren't hypothetical concerns... laws have been written about this because they happen, at scale. While I'm inclined to think the regulations as they stand today are heavy-handed and more expensive than they need to be to get the job done, that doesn't negate the fact that they exist for a reason, a reason that isn't just hypothetical but happened a lot.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#107

Post by msandford » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:17 PM UTC

rwallace wrote: post #102

michaelt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I believed we could make a database shared between my GP and my spine specialist without my records also being shared with all insurers, employers, marketing companies, security services, medical researchers, credit rating agencies, and anyone who slips any hospital employee a hundred bucks.

So do I, but given the world as it is, wouldn't you much prefer some idiot marketing guy spamming you on the basis of your medical records, than a screwup in the chain of communication between your GP and spine specialist leaving you crippled or dead?

It's the asymmetry of it. A person might have only one GP and one specialist. That is fairly easily managed. It's not good I agree. But it's MANAGEABLE.

Once there is a single large integrated database it's a HUGE target for people to creatively re-interpret the rules such that they can sell access to it. It's also a hacking target too since doctors tend to be a real pain in the ass about collecting all kinds of information that's not medically necessary but perhaps necessary for billing or in case you try not to pay your bill.

Right now this information is federated meaning that there's no one single point of failure. Hospital X's systems might go down, but Hospital Y's systems are still up. That means that unless something REALLY BAD happens across all the hospitals you're not going to die because a computer crashes.

I am far more on-board with good interchange protocols (Diaspora) than with one large centrally managed database (Facebook).

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#108

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:18 PM UTC

rwallace wrote: post #102

michaelt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I believed we could make a database shared between my GP and my spine specialist without my records also being shared with all insurers, employers, marketing companies, security services, medical researchers, credit rating agencies, and anyone who slips any hospital employee a hundred bucks.

So do I, but given the world as it is, wouldn't you much prefer some idiot marketing guy spamming you on the basis of your medical records, than a screwup in the chain of communication between your GP and spine specialist leaving you crippled or dead?

[deleted]

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#109

Post by moe » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:29 PM UTC

mcculley wrote: post #90

rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'm okay with health data being illiquid. Everyone should be absolutely terrified of this data getting into the hands of the same people that try to predict if you are pregnant to sell you crap, or use your credit history or Facebook posts to deny you a job. The future in that direction is "Google Gattaca."

I'm not. The illiquidity is why different healthcare specialists can't share data about me without resorting to a ten finger interface that leads to transcription errors. I want my general practitioner and my spine specialist to be using the same database for records, test, and scans. I'm okay with being embarrassed if it means living longer and better.

If only we had a technology to physically carry around data in our pocket, and selectively share it without uploading it to remote servers...

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#110

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:35 PM UTC

rwallace wrote: post #102

michaelt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I believed we could make a database shared between my GP and my spine specialist without my records also being shared with all insurers, employers, marketing companies, security services, medical researchers, credit rating agencies, and anyone who slips any hospital employee a hundred bucks.

So do I, but given the world as it is, wouldn't you much prefer some idiot marketing guy spamming you on the basis of your medical records, than a screwup in the chain of communication between your GP and spine specialist leaving you crippled or dead?

[deleted]