Some Microsoft balance? HealthVault!

by on October 8, 2007

Steve Clayton writes a post titled “Some Microsoft balance. At last.”

In the meantime Google breaks through 600 and MSFT is still stuck under 30 (I own stock in MSFT and not Google so my “balance” is out of whack. Heh.).

Anyway, Steve, one thing you SHOULD have pointed to was the new Microsoft Health Vault. That’s a legitimate place where Microsoft kicked Google’s behind by being first. That site could really use some SEO, though. Whoever wrote the title tag for that page should be sent to Danny Sullivan’s school for a while to learn what mistakes he/she made and how to correct them (it is hard to find this page on Google, believe it or not).

I see even TechCrunch gave Microsoft props for being first out of the gate. I wonder why Steve didn’t make a bigger deal about this?

Later today I have an interview with a doctor at Stanford’s Children’s Hospital who works in the IT department there and we talk more about these kinds of health services and how they might be used. I love my job, I get to hang out with so many smart people and I get paid for it! I pinch myself again.

Anyway, enough Microsoft balance for today. I’m off to Dave’s Facebook conference now that I’m all balanced up.

UPDATE: my interview with the Stanford doctor is now up.

  • Great coverage on the Health Vault. I have been busy on that one myself. I have followed your articles since that Channel 9 Overlake Hospital video, which is still great and good for anyone to view. Also, I have gone a little further with this in getting down to some of the nitty gritty on what the "Vault" really does, including a message for the doctors to arm themselves as well with this new tool. If this helps, folk can venture over here and take a look for themselves, as there's no use in "ducking" the issue. (grin) There are a multitude of posts related to new medical technology on the site too, some you can even wear. Again, hope you don't mind me chiming in here, but I see this as a huge tool for better health care and we like tablets over there too.

    http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal...

    http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2007/10/microsof...
  • david
    Just one question here guys - are you all willing to trust the borg and borg technology with your medical records. I'm not just walking away from the Vault - I'm running and screaming in terror. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust Google or Yahoo either. It's scary enough knowing my insurance company, hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies all have my information (not so securely) locked away digitally.
  • david: I have SOME fears here, but not many. Most people won't input their really embarrassing stuff they tell the doctor. We cover that stuff in the interview with the Stanford Doctor, though, that's now up. See minute 41 of that interview.
  • Perhaps a look at Galvanon's offering is a solid place to start for the Health Care industry. And this offering doesn't have the privacy issues that a Vault might have.

    http://www.galvanon.com
  • Thanks for the HealthVault tip-off Robert - interesting - the first time I have ever bookmarked a MSFT site.
  • I blogged about HealthVault the other day and there was quite and interesting discussion in the personalized medicine blogosphere. Sticking to just the microsoft angle, it almost seemed to me, once I had given the site a try, that in their eagerness to beat Google, they had released a half finished product. I do get the idea of where they want to go, but the implementation leaves much to be desired


    As to the specific subject of personalized health records, there are way too many variables right now. Privacy is only one of them. The bigger issue is data ownership and the role of the personal online health record. Is it meant to be a personal guide to healthcare, much like Mint/Quicken would be for financial planning, or the definitive health record accessible by healthcare provider and payer? Who decides who gets to see what information, etc etc. Until some of those questions are resolved, online health records can only remain in the guide category.

    I also worry about patients thinking they have sufficient information and making incorrect decisions. Anyway, these are early days.
  • Deepak: based on the home page of HealthVault I'd agree with you. Really poor execution. But then I was trying to be balanced in my approach toward Microsoft here. See what happens when you bend over backward to appease MSFT'ies?
  • robert

    maybe steve wasnt excited about healthvault since it's a US thing and he is in the UK.
  • I think Microsoft's branding team should be fired for this one. Microsoft beat Google to the punch with this one and it would have been a solid effort to except for the branding. For all the security concerns about PHR, 'Vault' is just a horrible word to use. While associated with security, I think it's on the negative feelings end of the spectrum, as in secrets locked up in the vault. On the website, look at the first header underneath the title header: Health Vault Search. If we're talking about a vault of secrets, the last image I want is the idea of being able to search through MY VAULT. And geez, it's the imposing 'Health Vault' and right next to it is a mother kissing her kid.

    What Microsoft should have done was downplayed the heavy security language and instead focused on the features to the customer. I mean I arrive at the website, I don't even know what it's about or why I should bother to use the website and the first thing in my face is a search bar and a link to signup. Way to drive away your customers. Does Microsoft not have a single user experience designer on their payroll? Advertise popular search terms, the sites that are connected to Health Vault, and the information that's available. Build the trust with the consumer, don't beat them over the head with it.

    If anything, http://www.healthvault.com/Applications/ should have been the homepage. A quick explanation on the left, diagram on the right, and a list of partners. Now I've got an enticing offering of why I should use Health Vault and I'm ready to signup.

    For all the criticism of Microsoft, I was actually looking forward to their PHR offering. But a maneuver like this really doesn't inspire confidence -- it's another sign that Microsoft has dived into new territory without understanding the market, audience, and issues.
  • I am very security minded as well, especially with everyone building data bases, and how and where they are used. It was interesting to see Aetna call the Health Vault "vapor ware" too and come out with less than favorable comments stating they have better systems and have been in this business longer. It comes down to consumer trust with online data and in choosing between "Bill" and "Aetna" as the keeper...well...that one isn't hard to figure out. I agree there is more to build, but think MS is out to a good start.
  • Well Aetna has their own PHR blackbox, CareEngine, which explains their attitude to HealthVault. I agree that given a choice between Aetna and MS, I would choose the latter. The models are also different. CareEngine is designed for you to work with Aetna and your healthcare provider to make health decisions, but the secret sauce behind CareEngine's recommendations, at least to the best of my knowledge are just that, a secret sauce. I just don't trust an insurance company in this regard
  • Frank nails it (partly) in that I didn't pay too much attention to Health Vault as it's US based and I'm in the UK. Really, there is a life outside of Redmond... ;)

    also, as you know Robert this place is kinda big and it's hard to keep up with *all* of the innovations :)
  • It's a little hard to get the word out to the world when certain Mountain View news aggregators blackout the news...

    http://www.ratdiary.com/2007/10/05/its-googles-...
  • Tankko
    You do realize that the price of one share of stock is 100% irrelevant to how much a company is worth? Right? What matters is market cap. Google: $190b. Microsoft: $280b. Of course, the stock going up is most important, which Google's is and Microsoft's isn't, but $30 vs. $600 is meaningless.
  • Diego
    I wouldn't trust Microsoft with my medical records. I'd trust Google though. Microsoft is still evil. No matter how they try and sugar coat it.
  • Thanks for the video...used it over at the Medical Quack...good stuff.
  • -gary
    I get tired of the "Google's stock is $400 ($500, $600 or whatever number) and Microsoft's is _only_ $30, so they must be better" argument. If you took Google's share price today, $624, and Microsoft's, $30, and leveled Google's 312MM shares to Microsoft's 9.4B, Microsoft would have a $908 share price.
  • Suzie Lam
    Thought you might get a kick out of this hilarious toon on HealthVault:

    http://sheldoncomics.com/archive/071010.html
blog comments powered by Disqus