Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thehealthcareblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

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

#71

Post by tallanvor »

laurenstill wrote: post #57
zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc. The P in HIPAA stands for Portability. At it's heart, the act was supposed to guarantee patients have access to their health information, not bring health data liquidity to it's knees. This is Jonathan Bush, of Athena, testifying (read: ranting) a couple weeks ago about regulations and innovation in hea…

How many people do you see posting all of their conditions and the medications they're taking on Facebook? I can't think of any friend who is THAT open.

Also, whether or not people care about their privacy doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected. Not just for themselves, but for their family as well. --Let's say I don't allow my medical information to be used, by my brother does. If he has a genetic disease and a potential employer finds out about it, they might decide not to hire me because there's a chance I may have it as well, which could cause problems if it ended up needing treatment. Laws that prevent discrimination are all well and good, but the problem can be proving the reason they decided not to hire you.

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

#72

Post by laurenstill »

tallanvor wrote: post #71
laurenstill wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc. The P in HIPAA stands for Portability. At it's heart, the act was supposed to guarantee patients have access to their health information, not bring health data liquidity to it's knees. This is Jonathan Bush, of Athena, testifying (read: ranting) a couple weeks ago about regulations and innovation in hea…

How many people do you see posting all of their conditions and the medications they're taking on Facebook? I can't think of any friend who is THAT open. Also, whether or not people care about their privacy doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected. Not just for themselves, but for their family as well. --Let's say I don't allow my medical information to be used, by my brother does. If he has a genetic disease and a pote…

Never said privacy shouldn't be protected, only that it's not exactly valued by BOTH sides of the equation (and of course, YMMV). Up until recently (Omnibus rule), HIPAA had little practical power in that department from both an audit perspective and a fine/mediation perspective. The largest fine levied? It was for inadequate patient access to their own health information, not a security breach.

And even with the new rule, there are currently no regulations surrounding de-identified PHI being used for marketing purposes, research, or sold for whatever other purposes. So now you have data wharehousers like IMS spinning up software dev depts with the specific goal of harvesting patient data.

As far as identity vs membership vs attribute disclosure, I linked to a good study below.

I find it interesting that there are more comments in the average HN healthcare-related thread than on any of the recent NPRM. Hell, there are more comments here than people who actually showed up for FDASIA.

I support regulation in a lot of cases, and feel that that FDA took a reasonable approach to the recent mobile medical device guidelines. What I, and pretty much everyone else (other than the AMA) rails against is the indiscriminate flip flopping of what regulations, standards, etc will be required, and on what time horizon.

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

#73

Post by amirmc »

laurenstill wrote: post #57
zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc. The P in HIPAA stands for Portability. At it's heart, the act was supposed to guarantee patients have access to their health information, not bring health data liquidity to it's knees. This is Jonathan Bush, of Athena, testifying (read: ranting) a couple weeks ago about regulations and innovation in hea…

> "Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc."

The first part of the sentence is flawed, so the latter doesn't follow. It implicitly assumes that people even understand how things work (they don't, imho) and therefore can make a sound judgment, based on that knowledge.

For example, I could argue that people simply don't value their future selves (ie 30+yrs), otherwise they wouldn't be eating all this junk food now and never exercising. In some sense that's true, but it's mainly driven by ignorance.

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

#74

Post by Multics »

zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

Not bad for startups? So the merit of this is based on the value to startups, not society?

Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.

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

#75

Post by vertex-four »

jamra wrote: post #12
ericflo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less regulation with respect to healthcare data would probably save lives, but increase discrimination.

As long as the laws continue to adapt in order to protect people from discrimination, we are on the right track.

This is the USA, it's about 40-50 years behind even my country (the UK) on discrimination-related law and practice, and law related to societal issues in general. One could argue that this is just the set of trade-offs that the US has made for itself, but the real-world results are looking grim.

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

#76

Post by netcan »

Multics wrote: post #74
zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

Not bad for startups? So the merit of this is based on the value to startups, not society? Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.

What is this?

This is a forum for/about startups. He made a statement relevant to startups. What exactly are you mad at?

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

laurenstill wrote: post #57
zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc. The P in HIPAA stands for Portability. At it's heart, the act was supposed to guarantee patients have access to their health information, not bring health data liquidity to it's knees. This is Jonathan Bush, of Athena, testifying (read: ranting) a couple weeks ago about regulations and innovation in hea…

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by XorNot »

micro_cam wrote: post #55
dontmindifido wrote: post #46

I'd love to see them take an altruistic approach and shift the focus to countries like Africa where health projects would provide a lot more utility and have a lot less regulatory burden. Once a product is visibly working in one country it's more difficult to make cases against it elsewhere.

I've heard Bill Gates state this as one of his philanthropic goals; to fund things with a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't make sense in the developed world but does elsewhere. I've worked with people involved in HIV vaccine trials overseas and, in fact, things really don't change as much as you might think. The basic tenant "first do no harm" is ingrained at an many different ethical, institutional and legal level…

Also because the history of unethical research is long and storied enough already. It's pretty well appreciated where that path leads.

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

#80

Post by Multics »

netcan wrote: post #76
Multics wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not bad for startups? So the merit of this is based on the value to startups, not society? Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.

What is this? This is a forum for/about startups. He made a statement relevant to startups. What exactly are you mad at?

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.'

Post reply on HN