There's no doubt that we already have much of the technologies to realize this goal. There's also no doubt that if we were to incorporate such a wide-reaching assimilation of health data into such a tightly woven network, that the health of each individual would be on the climb. One doesn't have to look far into their own family history, I'm sure, to come up with at least one glaring example of where a lack of information in one link of the medical chain has had disastrous consequences.
So from a completely humanitarian perspective, I am easily excited by the positive benefits this would have in the world, (full disclosure, I'm also working in this space) but I am not too confident that it will happen to the level this article postulates. The problem that's going to slow or stop this idea from ever reaching full fruition isn't, I believe, because the technology isn't possible. What's going to stop this from happening is the actual data that the technology supplies. The article states: "Users like Susan will depend on governed levels of access to protect their privacy while leveraging the support and power of many to manage their family's health." The word "governed" is going to be the deal breaker there. Governed by who? Of all the personal data that a person has, I would venture to guess that their medical records are the most closely guarded. Perhaps even more-so than their financial. Future employers, future or current Insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms, or even your potential future in-laws would be VERY interested in this wide reaching level of information, and I think it's going to be a very hard sell to the general public that this information is safe. The article does go on to say: "These developments require substantial innovation, validation, and adoption of a standardized, security backbone that providers can trust with their patient's data and that patients can trust to allow them consistent access to their medical histories." But that's a pretty weighty sentence. A bit of an understatement, really, but the author certainly understands the limiting factors. Perhaps now is a good time to buy into network security and encryption firms. I'm just not too sure that the majority of the american public is ready for this. I think some of the louder voiced people on the extremes of the right will be jumping on the "governing" part, while those on the extremes of the left will jump on the privacy and corporate access to data part. The article continues to say: "The tools and technology may be new, but the natural instinct to respond more strongly when you are being observed is not. Studies have long shown that people change their behavior simply because they are being observed. This is based on both a desire for reward as well as fear of punishment." Yes, I agree. And I don't think that's going to help in giving the public a real 'warm and fuzzy' feeling when trying to introduce the technology. That being said, it's still exciting and the benefits to individual health would be obvious. Given the opt-in option, the ground swell will happen, but I believe it will be slow and hampered. On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, David Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > The potential to be game changing is the most exciting part about this > space > (full disclosure, I work in this space). But, the reality is that the > industry as a whole is not yet ready for such a dramatic change. It could > be a fairly long time out before we see any real changes even though the > technology exists. Bummer because there's some great ideas out there. > > David > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
