Google Health Is Alive and, Er, Well
Google has debunked a blog post by an analyst claiming that Google Health, the company's effort to help patients access their personal health records from any computing device through a secure portal, is dead or in stasis. John Moore, founder of health care technology analyst company Chilmark Research, wrote May 28 that Google Health has "struggled to be relevant" since its launch two years ago. Moreover, Moore added:
A Google spokesperson told eWEEK this couldn't be further from the truth:
A source familiar with the company's plans told me there has been no executive decision to pull the plug on Google Health and new people continue to join the team. "The project is alive and well from a staffing perspective," the source told me. That, of course, doesn't mean that Google isn't shuttling off or firing existing Google Health product people and bringing in new blood. That could explain the quiet around the service; the last news blog about it was published March 1 for HIMSS, when Google said it had integrated with drug prescription network Surescripts. It is now June 2. By Google's measure, and by the measures of many modern high-tech companies, three months is a long time to go without any news. Google itself acknowledged the methodical evolution of the service in that post, in which Alfred Spector, Google vice president of Research & Special Projects, said the Health team has been "analyzing feedback from our user surveys and field studies to help make Google Health more useful and relevant to a broad set of consumers on a daily basis." Read the post and you get the idea that Google is building more tools to help users personalize, customize and track their own medical information. The company is also pursuing integration agreements with providers. That was three months ago, though, so you understand Moore's concern. He further wonders whether Microsoft's rival HealthVault service will languish if Google Health is dying or being put into stasis (Moore's merciful euphemism for a slow, eked-out death):
More broadly, he's concerned about the health of the PHP (Personal Health Platform) market at large. My feeling is the world isn't ready for accessing personal health records online en masse just yet. No concrete reason, just a hunch. For many, the current system works okay. Most people don't access their health records with the frequency with which they check their bank accounts. Google Health, HealthVault and any like service may be better suited for high-tech hobbyists. If Google and my source are to be believed, Google Health is feeling fine. It just needs time to grow. Lacking any info to the contrary, we Google Watchers will have to wait and see. |

Comments (2)
How many members does Google Health and Healthvault currently have? Since Healthcare Providers' (i.e., Doctor's offices and Hospitals) EHRs need to have some PHR access to their patients as part of the "meaningful use" requirement, I wonder if users will eventually be open to use any of these public sites.
I think the US population is not quite ready for PHRs with their concern on privacy issues. This is mainly concerns with insurance companies seeing health information that might affect their insurance. However, in countries like UK, France, and Canada where healthcare is government run, I don't see why they should not use it.
Posted by Erwin Chiong | June 9, 2010 1:59 PM
The last lines are key. We don't go on and check our health information regularly. Why would I need to go online to see that my wife is still allergic to penicillin? The exception is chronic patients that want to actively participate in their healthcare and coordinate a myriad of doctors. However, that's a much smaller market.
Posted by John Lynn | March 3, 2011 11:32 AM