microsoft healthvault case study

Advertisement

Evaluation of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health personal health records

• Original Paper
• Published: 24 February 2013
• Volume 3 , pages 3–10, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Ali Sunyaev 1  

714 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

Consumer healthcare is an approach to encourage patients to participate in the health system, possibly resulting in a larger data and information basis with better quality, potentially leading to healthier lifestyles, better diagnoses and treatments. Personal health records (PHR) are the important parts of consumer healthcare, used to organize healthcare information. Currently, the most well-known systems in this new market are Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health. In this article we list 25 features that we deem the end user sees as necessary for a successful PHR. We analyze the state of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health in regard to these features. This article also examines and compares the design of the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of both systems since it will affect the number and variety of value-added applications that will be developed. The accuracy of an API design could be essential for the commercial success of these PHR systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Comparison Review of Existing Personal Health Management Apps in the Portuguese Health Sector Framework

The Patient-Centered Electronic Health Record and Patient Portals

Personal Health Informatics

https://www.google.com/health

http://www.healthvault.com/Personal/index.html

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/google.com/?metric=uv

Currently: pip.verisignlabs.com; openid.trustbearer.com; myopenid.com; myvidoop.com.

Spremann K. In: Bamberg G, Spremann K, editors. Agent and principal, agency theory, information, and incentives. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1987. p. 3–38.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lewis D, Friedman C. In: Ball MJ, Hannah KJ, Newbold SK, Douglas JV, editors. Consumer health informatics. Nursing informatics: where caring and technology meet. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.

Google Scholar  

Markle Foundation. Connecting for health. The personal health working group final report. 2003.

Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. What do patients do with access to their medical records? Med Info. 2001;10(Part 2):1440–4.

Halamka JD, Mandl KD, Tang PC. Early experiences with personal health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(1):1–7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hoyt R, Sutton M, Yoshihashi A. Chapter 4: patient informatics. Med Inf. 2007;69–83: Lulu.com.

Kim MI, Johnson KB. Personal health records: evaluation of functionality and utility. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:171–80.

Lee MC. Evaluation of MyHealtheVet Implementation at the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Oregon: Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University; 2006.

Sittig DF. Personal health records on the Internet: a snapshot of the pioneers at the end of the 20th century. Int J Med Inform. 2002;65:1–6.

Sunyaev A, Chornyi D, Mauro C, Krcmar H. Evaluation framework for personal health records: Microsoft HealthVault vs. Google Health. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 43), Jan. 2010, Kauai, Hawaii.

Sunyaev A, Kaletsch A, Krcmar H. Comparative evaluation of Google Health API vs. Microsoft HealthVault API. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Health Informatics (HealthInf 2010), January 20–23, 2010, Valencia, Spain, pp. 195–201.

Fetter MS. Personal health records: protecting behavioral health consumers’ rights. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2009;30:720–2.

Murphy J. Information systems & technology. Patient as center of the health care universe: a closer look at patient-centered care. Nurs Econ. 2011;29:35–7.

Montreuil B, Garon R. Toward patient centric and distributed healthcare delivery networks. Clin Invest Med. 2005;28:351–2.

Lenert L. Transforming healthcare through patient empowerment. Inf Knowl Syst Manag. 2009;8:159–75.

Breen GM et al. Improving doctor-patient communication: examining innovative modalities vis-à-vis effective patient-centric care management technology. J Med Syst. 2009;33:155–62.

Stewart M, Towards A. Global definition of patient centred care: the patient should be the judge of patient centred care. Br Med J. 2001;322:444–5.

Epstein RM et al. Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Heal Aff. 2010;29:1489–95.

Skilton A et al. Role-based access in a unified electronic patient record. Health Informat J. 2010;16:225–32.

Hayes G, The NHS. Information Technology (IT) and Social Care Review 2009: a synopsis. Inform Prim Care. 2010;18:81–8.

Rusu M et al. eHealth: towards a healthcare service-oriented boundary less infrastructure. Appl Med Inform. 2010;27:1–14.

Rynning E. Public trust and privacy in shared electronic health records. Eur J Health Law. 2007;14:105–12.

Bakalar R. IBM’s vision for the future in patient-centric global health care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:766–71.

Angst W. Privacy safeguards in PHR adoption. Health Manag Technol. 2008;29:39–40.

Hoffman S, Podgurski A. E-Health hazards: provider liability and electronic health record systems. Berkeley Technol Law J. 2009;24:1523–81.

McKnight M. The information seeking of on-duty critical care nurses: evidence from participant observation and in context interviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:145–51.

Allinson R. Specialty medications and prescription adherence. Pharm Times. 2009;75:34.

Google, Google Health FAQ, 24.05.2009; http://www.google.com/intl/en-US/health/faq.html .

Cross M. Goliath moves into healthcare records. BMJ. 2007;335.

Peters K, Niebling M, Slimmer C, Green T, Webb JM, Schumacher R. Usability guidance for improving the user interface and adoption of online personal health records. Oakbrook Terrace: User Centric, Inc; 2009.

Nolan S. The HealthVault Nickel Tour, 18.05.2009; http://blogs.msdn.com/familyhealthguy/pages/the-healthvault-nickel-tour.aspx .

Kaelber DC, Shah S, Vincent A, Pan E, Hook JM, Johnston D, et al. The value of personal health records. Charlestown: Center for Information Technology Leadership; 2008.

Sunyaev A, Chornyi D. Supporting chronic disease care quality: design and implementation of a health service and its integration with electronic health records. In: ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, vol. 3, num. 2, pp. 1–21, May 2012.

Wilson EV. Patient-centered E-health. Hershey: IGI Publications; 2009.

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923, Cologne, Germany

Ali Sunyaev

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Sunyaev .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sunyaev, A. Evaluation of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health personal health records. Health Technol. 3 , 3–10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0049-4

Download citation

Received : 20 December 2012

Accepted : 14 February 2013

Published : 24 February 2013

Issue Date : March 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0049-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Consumer healthcare
• Google Health
• Microsoft HealthVault
• Personal health records
• Comparative evaluation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to secondary sidebar
• Skip to footer

What The Failure of Microsoft’s HealthVault Means for the Future of EHRs

by Donald Brown, Founder & CEO of LifeOmic 04/19/2019 Leave a Comment

Microsoft recently announced that it is officially shutting down HealthVault at the end of this year. HealthVault was Microsoft’s attempt at a web-based personal health record system. You probably never used it — it suffered low adoption. But while HealthVault will shut down, mobile apps that collect and store your personal health information and share it with your healthcare team are poised to revolutionize medicine and wellness practice.

The downfalls of HealthVault included its focus on traditional health records over dynamic and patient-acquired data, its lack of integration with many popular wearables and other smart health devices and its limited social and sharing capabilities. Electronic medical records are an extremely small part of the overall picture of a person’s health today. These records are primarily kept and utilized for the purposes of insurance reimbursement. To the chagrin of doctors, electronic medical records are not leveraged for health optimization. Without genomic data, mobile telemetry, health behavior data, and patient-acquired data, today’s electronic medical records are close to worthless for both the provider and the patient. HealthVault also was not designed for mobile, the final nail in the coffin.

HealthVault didn’t offer patients much if any insight into their health problem areas, how their health was changing over time or what they could be doing to improve it. Microsoft’s HealthVault may have been first to the market in terms of arming people with their health records, but it failed to offer people and their healthcare teams the actionable insights and support needed to change health behaviors and outcomes.

We are still in the early days of understanding what people expect and how they actually use their personal health information. We have little idea if and how wellness data collected through smart devices and wearables can help people make healthier decisions. Healthcare providers are similar in their early days of leveraging patient-acquired and wearables data to drive better outcomes and personalize care. But as data about a patient’s lifestyle, behaviors, environmental exposures, social influences, changes in health status through time, etc. become more and more important to deliver precise care, the only path forward involves patient engagement via smart devices and socially connected apps, mobile, wearables, the cloud and artificial intelligence (AI) .

Apple is following this path with its Apple Health Records. It was launched in 2018 and is working with healthcare providers to help close the gap between providers and patients. For example, patients within the University of California Health network were recently given the ability to download their medical data (including lab results, medication information, etc.) onto their Apple smartphones and merge it with other data acquired through self-tracking in popular third-party apps and through wearables such as blood glucose monitors.

Smaller tech companies are even more nimbly following the trend of empowering the patient with smart insights from their health data and the provider with patient-acquired data and mobile telemetry. Trust in giants like Microsoft, Google and Facebook have eroded, leaving an opportunity for smaller companies, often more closely associated with respected healthcare institutions such as academic medical centers, to come onto the health tech scene. For example, Indiana University School of Medicine has partnered with a small Indianapolis-based company to build a cloud-based platform, including a suite of mobile apps, that combines and applies AI to multiple sources of health information, delivering insights to patients, providers and clinical researchers alike to make precision medicine a reality. Providers can make better decisions about what treatments to prescribe to patients through up-to-date symptom, mood and behavior tracking in the same mobile app that patients use to engage in health challenges with their friends, track their fitness and send questions to their doctors and health coaches. This information can be combined with whole genome sequencing to deliver on the promise of precision or personalized medicine.

Tech that offers people better access to and use of their personal health information must deliver value in terms of patient education, engagement, and actual health outcomes. This means closing the gap between patients and providers, helping data to flow in both directions. Health apps must not only offer better access to data but make this data “sing” with insights that are simple to interpret and act upon. Platforms that integrate this data need to put people at their center, which means leveraging smartphones and wearables. To be practical these platforms must account for how fragmented our health data are today, facilitating the integration of data from EMRs, wearables , medical devices, Apple Healthkit, Apple Health Records , DNA sequencing, and more.

About the Author

Donald Brown is the CEO of LifeOmic , a software company that leverages the cloud, machine learning and mobile devices to power precision health solutions for providers, researchers, healthcare IT, pharma and individuals. Our cloud-based software securely aggregates, stores and analyzes patient data to accelerate the development and delivery of precision health treatments.

Reader Interactions

• Advertise with Us
• Reprints and Permissions
• Submit An Op-Ed

Editorial Coverage

• Care Coordination
• Interoperability
• Population Health Management
• Revenue Cycle Management
• Artificial Intelligence
• Blockchain Tech
• Precision Medicine
• Accountable Care
• Medicare Advantage

Subscribe to HIT Consultant Media

Latest insightful articles delivered straight to your inbox weekly

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• Development
• Consultancy

Microsoft’s HealthVault: What Was It and Why Did It Fail?

Microsoft HealthVault was a web-based system for recording, storing, and maintaining digitised health information. Healthcare professionals and individuals could both use the service. 

The health record system was launched in 2007; however, due to low user numbers, HealthVault was permanently shut down in 2019 — despite the popularity of health and wellness applications, and the fact that the system was created by one of the world’s biggest software companies. 

So what was HealthVault? How was it used? And why was it closed?

Here’s a brief history of Microsoft’s healthcare record system and some of the lessons that the industry has taken from its failure.  

What Was HealthVault?

HealthVault was set up to let users collect their own personal healthcare information. Microsoft launched the service with the support of Johnson & Johnson, the American Heart Association, and Allscripts. 

Users could access information via the HealthVault website; however, its data could be shared with up to 120 different partner apps, including Microsoft Health, along with those of various hospitals and other providers. 

Microsoft’s HealthVault was the first service of its kind to reach the market; however, the lack of actionable information and low user numbers meant that it also served as a lesson for competitors venturing into the field later. 

When Was HealthVault In Operation?

Microsoft launched HealthVault in the United States in October 2007. The service was extended to the United Kingdom in June 2010. 

Microsoft initially announced HealthVault’s closure on April 5th, 2019. The service was operational until November 20th, 2019. 

Who Could Use HealthVault?

HealthVault was designed for individuals and healthcare professionals. As well as being able to access their own health records, parents could also manage their child’s records.

The system initially required users to have a HealthVault account which could be linked to a Windows Live ID, OpenID, or Facebook account; however, the ability to connect to Facebook and OpenID accounts was removed in May 2016. 

Using HealthVault

Users could either use HealthVault records via the HealthVault website, or through a device or partner app that could connect to the platform. 

When signing up to HealthVault for the first time, new users had to determine what data they would manage. Options included: 

• Managing conditions
• Tracking prescriptions
• Managing lab test results
• Getting and staying fit
• Caring for family members
• Connecting with healthcare providers

Users could also create an emergency profile that included details about allergies, conditions, medications, and emergency contact information. 

Using the HealthVault Connection Centre, it was possible to gather stats such as heart rate and blood pressure from connected medical devices. In 2014, Microsoft launched its own fitness tracker called Microsoft Band. Development and sales of this device were halted in 2016, and support for the companion app was discontinued in 2019. 

HealthVault also allowed the storage of medical imaging records. Both consumers and providers could view, upload, and download DICOM-based images either through the website or by a licensed third-party imaging viewer connected to HealthVault.  

What Went Wrong With HealthVault?

As with many tech projects, the failure of HealthVault wasn’t down to one specific issue. A catalogue of problems possibly contributed to the low user uptake.

Parallels could be drawn to Google Health which was launched in 2008 before being closed after just three years due to a lack of users. When Google wound down its health app, HealthVault was recommended as an alternative service. 

As smartphones and wearable devices grew in popularity, HealthVault remained a largely browser-based experience without a mobile app. With no app, HealthVault missed the opportunity to gather telemetry data, information on health habits, and other user-generated input. 

Over the years, the idea of integration with devices like FitBits was explored on several occasions, but these projects were always abandoned. 

In an age when patient-acquired data from social sharing and smart wearable health technology was growing, HealthVault’s lack of attention to dynamic data was costly. The web-based app was predominantly focused on traditional health records. However, this type of data is only a fraction of the picture of an individual’s health. 

Medical data in this format has limited use. These records were helpful for making insurance claims and for organisations processing healthcare billing but largely missed opportunities to add meaningful value in driving change in users’ health and wellbeing. 

What Was HealthVault Insights?

Launched in 2017, HealthVault Insights was a seperate app that provided trend analysis to users and providers. This short-lived research project used machine learning to examine data gathered from Apple Health and Google Fit services.

Microsoft gave no formal explanation for the app’s closure in 2018; however, at the time, it was believed that the decision was based on a lukewarm reception, with the few reviews on Microsoft and Apple app stores achieving low average scores. 

Microsoft’s Post HealthVault Focus

HealthVault’s demise coincided with a general shift at Microsoft from consumer-facing technology toward enterprise-level software. The company is now focused on developing services aimed at healthcare providers, allowing clinicians to share information securely and streamline interoperability and patient navigation. 

At the helm of the changes is Gary Moore, Microsoft’s corporate vice president for health technologies and alliances. Using Microsoft Azure-based applications, Moore is charged with building healthcare partnerships. 

What Next for Health Data?

Where the likes of HealthVault and Google Health have failed, Apple is looking for success. Launched in 2018, Apple Health Records connects with iPhones and Apple Watches for a connected user experience, allowing continuous monitoring and collection of health data. 

But it doesn’t end there. Apple’s Health Records can also gather data from third-party devices like blood-sugar monitors. 

What Happened to HealthVault Data?

After the closure of HealthVault, Microsoft deleted any data left in user accounts, and all apps reliant on any HealthVault data stopped working. 

Before deletion, all HealthVault users could migrate their data to services such as Get Real Health and FollowMyHealth. Users were contacted before data deletion, giving them the opportunity to migrate.

Subscribe to keep your inbox fresh!

Want to work together? Give us a shout.

Book a discovery call with Joanne

• Newsletters

IE 11 Not Supported

Google health vs. microsoft healthvault compared, participants preferred google health over microsoft healthvault because navigation and data entry of health information was easier..

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The military health system's personal health record pilot with Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health

Rick barnhill, kimberly a heermann-do, keith l salzman, ronald w gimbel.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence to Dr Nhan V Do, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3258, USA; [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Received 2010 Oct 14; Accepted 2010 Dec 8; Issue date 2011 Mar-Apr.

To design, build, implement, and evaluate a personal health record (PHR), tethered to the Military Health System, that leverages Microsoft ® HealthVault and Google ® Health infrastructure based on user preference.

Materials and methods

A pilot project was conducted in 2008–2009 at Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington. Our PHR was architected to a flexible platform that incorporated standards-based models of Continuity of Document and Continuity of Care Record to map Department of Defense-sourced health data, via a secure Veterans Administration data broker, to Microsoft ® HealthVault and Google ® Health based on user preference. The project design and implementation were guided by provider and patient advisory panels with formal user evaluation.

The pilot project included 250 beneficiary users. Approximately 73.2% of users were <65 years of age, and 38.4% were female. Of the users, 169 (67.6%) selected Microsoft ® HealthVault, and 81 (32.4%) selected Google ® Health as their PHR of preference. Sample evaluation of users reflected 100% (n=60) satisfied with convenience of record access and 91.7% (n=55) satisfied with overall functionality of PHR.

Key lessons learned related to data-transfer decisions (push vs pull), purposeful delays in reporting sensitive information, understanding and mapping PHR use and clinical workflow, and decisions on information patients may choose to share with their provider.

Currently PHRs are being viewed as empowering tools for patient activation. Design and implementation issues (eg, technical, organizational, information security) are substantial and must be thoughtfully approached. Adopting standards into design can enhance the national goal of portability and interoperability.

Keywords: Personal health Record, patient access to records, systems Integration, user-Computer interface, Internet

Introduction

Like other large healthcare organizations, the Military Health System (MHS) recognizes the potential value of an interoperable personal health record (PHR) in improving efficiency, enhancing quality and safety of care, and increasing consumers' participation in the healthcare process. 1 2 The PHR also shows promise as a tool to accelerate recent policy and regulatory goals by providing a source of health information exchange. Despite the promise, there are substantial barriers (eg, lack of role definitions, immature interoperability standards) to PHR adoption. 3–6

There are multiple PHR models that have been described in the literature, but most are variations of the stand-alone and the tethered PHR models. 7–12 The stand-alone PHR can be completely freestanding and dependent on self-entered data from patients or as an interconnected third-party PHR that can receive both self-entered and electronic health record (EHR) sourced data. A tethered PHR can be either provider- or payer-tethered. Regardless of model design, implementation challenges are formidable given barriers and debate on key issues such as privacy and security, architecture options, functionalities, and supporting policies.

The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) is the official outpatient EHR of the MHS connecting its medical centers, community hospitals, and clinics globally. As directed by both congressional and executive action, AHLTA, and all future health information systems, incorporates federal interoperability standards and implementation specifications. 13–15 In the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill, the Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) were charged with the implementation of ‘electronic health record system or capabilities that allow for full interoperability of personal healthcare information for DoD and VA.’ 13 Part of this charge was incorporating a patient focus where beneficiaries will have access to their own medical information. 14 The Military Care (MiCARE) pilot represented an opportunity to advance this goal.

To evaluate the feasibility of delivering an interoperable PHR for its beneficiaries, the MHS decided to pilot recent PHR offerings by Microsoft and Google. 16 The MHS considered a number of government and commercial off-the-shelf products in deciding what would best meet the overall needs of the health system and its beneficiaries. Initial cost and schedule constraints prohibited the delivery of a full complement of PHR functionalities, so a phased approach was used, starting with patients' access to a personal health data repository. Both Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health PHRs met DoD information privacy and security requirements while providing the opportunity for military beneficiaries to access their health information via the internet.

Initiated in the spring of 2008, MiCARE was developed as a pilot project with the objective of expanding MHS beneficiary access to their EHR-based medical information via Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault (or both). MiCARE was created as a portal for users to manage their PHR account and access future PHR functionalities, and for access to other sources of health data. In this manuscript, we describe the design, implementation, and lessons learned from our initial MiCARE pilot.

System description

Pilot study design.

Our pilot was conducted at Madigan Army Medical Center, a 1.2 M square foot 400 bed tertiary care facility located in Tacoma, Washington. The facility is a designated Level II trauma center for the military and for Pierce County, Washington. 17 The county contains 750 000 residents, of which approximately 100 000 are eligible military beneficiaries enrolled to the facility for care. The facility is home to a variety of graduate medical and nursing education programs and employs approximately 4224 military and civilian staff. In a given year, the facility realizes >1.6 M clinic visits, >1.4 M prescriptions and >1.9 M laboratory procedures. 17 Madigan Army Medical Center was selected as a home for the MiCARE pilot in part due to the facility's size and its developed clinical informatics department.

The MiCARE pilot project was approved and funded in 2008. Primary development occurred between May and November 2008, with recruitment activity focused during the last 2 months of development. The pilot formally began in November 2008, and for 10 months the enrollment was capped at the first 250 users. Recruitment was open to active duty members, active duty family members, retirees, and family members of retirees. The pilot concluded in November 2009 when enrollment was opened to additional beneficiaries and remains so today. As of October 2010, there are >2000 enrollees with approximately 30–40 new users enrolled each month.

The MiCARE pilot was marketed to the target population using several strategies. Between August and November 2008, formal presentations were made to active patient advisory groups and beneficiary support meetings. Print advertisements were placed in the base newspaper and two local community newspapers. Posters were posted in the base department store, grocery store, and large electronic signs at the facility's main gates. Hospital staff members were encouraged to promote enrollment by personal referral. Finally, manned registration booths were established within the facility, and both a registration phone number and email address were created.

MiCARE operations: how it worked

As shown in figure 1 , enrollees accessed the secure MiCARE web server located at the American Lake Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital in Lakewood, Washington. This VA-based gateway served as the access point for transfer of patient data. When the participant selected the desired PHR repository via a data broker, Microsoft or Google exchanged a token with MiCARE which was stored in the MiCARE database. This token supported continued sharing of records with the beneficiary's PHR of choice. As the beneficiaries selected PHR data elements ( box 1 ), MiCARE would run a query over the MHS-VA Bi-Directional Health Information Exchange (BHIE) framework to search for similar data types at over 100 MHS sites and the MHS clinical data repository. Data returned from the query were placed into the PHR repository of choice for the beneficiary's access. The MiCARE users had rather comprehensive PHR data elements (eg, laboratory results, physician notes) available to them; many contemporary PHRs do not include all of these elements. 18

MiCARE architecture BHIE, Bi-Directional Health Information Exchange; DNS, domain name system; MiCare, Military Care; SQL, structured query language; VA, Veterans Affairs.

Box 1. Military Care personal health record data elements.

Laboratory results *

Medications

Radiology reports

Appointments

Medical procedures

Medical problems list

Consultation reports

Inpatient notes

Outpatient encounter notes

* Laboratory results were added in October 2009.

MiCARE architecture and design

MiCARE was architected to perform as a flexible platform for transferring data between various DoD data sources and stand-alone PHRs ( figure 1 ). MiCARE incorporated standards-based models including the Continuity of Care Document (CCD) and Continuity of Care Record (CCR) to map DoD-sourced data to standardized formats most commonly supported by healthcare systems. 19 In our pilot, Google Health operated a subset of the CCR to model its PHR data, while Microsoft maintained a custom model that includes support for the CCR as CCD standards. The architecture allowed MiCARE to adopt new data sources and partner with additional PHR systems in the future. The architecture repository was maintained by Microsoft and Google.

Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health utilize Service Oriented Architecture in their system design, providing accessibility of their systems through web services. The web services are implemented using varying technologies, Microsoft uses their standard Simple Object Access Protocol, and Google uses the Atom Publishing Protocol. Both service interfaces are encapsulated in software development kits (SDKs) which provide us with a simplistic means of integrating with the PHR systems using our native development environment, Microsoft.NET. Unfortunately, these two SDKs expose very different application programming interfaces (APIs), and the interfaces accept data in widely dissimilar formats requiring MiCARE to translate between a common set of DoD data types and interfaces, and the varying data and interfaces exposed by the PHR APIs.

The approach used in MiCARE was to define commonly used data types and interfaces for communicating with the disparate PHRs. MiCARE was designed to accommodate the implementations for each PHR by mapping commonly defined schemas and interfaces to and from the PHR-specific services. By virtue of this standardized communication scheme, it is possible to integrate additional DoD data sources and third-party PHR systems more quickly and easily. For a detailed comparison of Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault attributes, see table 1 .

Comparison of Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault attributes during pilot

PHR, personal health record.

Health system organizational issues

Although some health organizations make available all data for the patient when available in the EHR, clinicians at our pilot site elected a 7-day wait period for clinical studies and excluded results related to sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy tests, and pathology reports. The delay provided the provider with an opportunity to contact the patient to interpret the results before viewing in the PHR and is adopted by other health systems with PHR capabilities. 20 21

For consumer control, a MiCARE enrollment module provided MHS beneficiaries the ability to self-register, initiate, or stop the transfer of their electronic health information. The module also enabled the patients to share their data. Exactly what data to share and whom to share them with was facilitated through the PHR of choice (ie, Microsoft HealthVault or Google Health). With Google Health, the sharing was at the ‘all or none’ level. With Microsoft HealthVault, data sharing granularity was at the ‘individual data element’ level. Sharing decisions would be selected by the beneficiary as permanent or temporary. Access to the beneficiary PHR account was retained regardless of election to change provider or departure from beneficiary eligibility (eg, left military).

Data credibility is critical for system adoption by providers. 9 22 Microsoft and Google both identify sources for data received. Both products display the source as an institution such as ‘Madigan Army Medical Center’ or person such as ‘John Doe.’ In the case of Google Health, the source name remains constant with the addition or deletion of data. With Microsoft HealthVault, data may be edited or redacted, but when performed the source name is modified to reflect the institution or individual initiating change. In our pilot, beneficiaries were prohibited from directly editing or deleting their official medical record; necessary changes were performed instead through an administrative office. While our pilot allowed patients to be in full control of compiling and releasing their available medical record, it also provided the integrity of the unaltered data from the official medical record, necessary for provider confidence in the system.

Keeping medical information secure is of utmost importance to sustain the provider's and patient's trust. In our pilot, we established responsibilities for the MHS, the PHR vendors, and the patient participants. Data were generated from a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) covered entity with a copy stored in the patient selected PHR repository (ie, Google and Microsoft); the PHRs were neither HIPAA covered entities nor linked to the MHS via Business Associate Agreement. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of the data stored in the PHR, Google and Microsoft relinquished complete control of the data to the patient, which in effect elevated the protective level beyond HIPAA requirements. While HIPAA allows disclosure of patient information without patient consent under certain criteria (eg, billing, quality improvement), Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault privacy policies did not.

The MHS Privacy Office extensively reviewed Microsoft and Google's privacy policies requesting multiple revisions and provisions related to our pilot. Revisions and accommodations related to specific requirements for physical location of PHR servers on US soil, physical security for servers and access procedures, and liability issues in event of breach. Both Google and Microsoft had well-established established policies in the event of security breaches. Both Microsoft and Google agreed to cover cost associated with any realized breach (eg, patient notification, individual credit reports) with liability capped at $1000 per user.

The legal exposure of providers who intentionally or unintentionally did not review patient-authored PHR health information was evaluated and cleared by MHS legal prior to pilot implementation.

Planned evaluation of MiCARE

There have been a number of attempts at evaluating the utility and usability of PHR functionalities. 7 8 18 21 23–25 While there seems to be some agreement across studies on PHR functionality, implementation choices appear somewhat dependent on the home institution's beneficiary and provider preferences. When designing our pilot, we opted for a two-pronged approach to evaluation. Specifically, we administered telephonic surveys of users in April 2009 and received ongoing feedback from advisory panels (providers and patients) on functionality and usability of MiCARE.

Status report and results

Aggregate pilot study data.

The pilot study user group included 250 MiCARE users enrolled between November 2008 and November 2009. Of the MiCARE users, 169 (67.6%) users selected Microsoft HealthVault, and 81 (32.4%) selected Google Health as their PHR of preference. Formal agreement with MHS leadership limited the amount of demographic information (ie, gender, age, and beneficiary category) that our MiCARE team was permitted to collect and report ( table 2 ). The MiCARE pilot user group included 96 (38.4%) females and 154 (61.6%) males. When compared to facility and MHS beneficiary demographics, our pilot included slightly fewer females than represented in the population. With respect to beneficiary category, 60 (24%) were active duty members, 79 (55.6%) were family of active duty members, and 111 (44.4%) were retirees and their family members. In comparison, the MiCARE pilot included a better representation of active duty family members and retirees than active duty members. This might be explained by the substantial deployment requirements currently being imposed on the active duty members. With respect to age of the MiCARE users, the mean age was 53.14 (SD 1.5) years. During the pilot, 73.2% of users were <65 years of age, which compares well to MHS beneficiary-wide data, which were 79% for the same age parameter. 26 27 To our knowledge, only one (0.4%) of the 250 MiCARE enrollees withdrew during the pilot period.

Military Care pilot group users: demographics

The MiCARE team began tracking usage statistics, using Google Analytics beginning in April 15, 2009. Table 3 provides overview statistics trended over time. The usage rate approximately doubled in the last two periods that is explained by the introduction of laboratory results into MiCARE. While originally planned from the onset of the pilot, the provider 7-day wait period in release of laboratory results (mentioned previously) resulted in a delay in adding the highly desired feature by MiCARE users. This policy-imposed mandate was time-consuming to implement, as over 3000 laboratory result types were modified to accommodate the delay.

Military Care usage statistics—trended

Data were calculated from Military Care portal using Google Analytics.

Telephone interviews of MiCARE users

The MiCARE team conducted telephone user interviews as planned in April 2009 by selecting a convenience sample from the 250 users stratified by user type (ie, active duty members (n=20), family members of active duty members (n=20), and retirees (n=20)). The team members called on MiCARE users and continued calling from a stratified list until they had achieved their 60 participant target. Survey results are recorded in table 4 . As expected, the majority of users conveyed satisfaction with MiCARE access to their PHR. The respondents were consistent in their desire for additional functionality (eg, secure messaging, appointment function) and offered additional unscripted feedback on system improvement (see table 4 ).

Results of telephonic survey of Military Care (MiCARE) users (n=60)

Provider and patient panel feedback

Our provider and patient panels met on a monthly basis during the first phase of work (May to November 2008) and bi-monthly during the actual pilot (November 2008 to November 2009). These panels proved useful to the MiCARE team, especially in understanding clinical workflow of participating providers and clinics. The panels also served as a platform for providing feedback on the usability of initial and add-on applications throughout the pilot ( table 5 ). The panels initially comprised 10 participants each, but the composition and number of participants changed over time as additional participants joined early efforts.

Salient feedback from Military Care provider and patient advisory panels

Technical issues

During our pilot, Google implemented seven of 17 XML-based CCR standards (ie, allergies, conditions, immunizations, medications, procedures, test results, demographics). While these sections were useful, researchers have noted that radiology reports and physicians' notes are among the most often requested information by patients for the PHR. 18

Adding data to Google Health involved specifying two pieces of information, a Notice and an attached CCR payload. The Notice could be compared to an email message. In our pilot, MiCARE sent an empty Notice with a subject (eg, new medication) and attached a related CCR (eg, medication information). When Google Health received the notice it parsed the medications from the CCR and stored the records discretely in the PHR. Any data elements not in the seven CCR categories that Google had implemented such as clinical notes, radiology reports, and appointments were transformed into HTML and stored as Notices. The latter created a challenge for patients or providers to quickly identify, search, or retrieve information stored in Notices.

During our pilot, Microsoft HealthVault accepted both the CCR and CCD. The CCD's primary use case was also the sharing of summary data by constraining the Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) with the data set from the CCR. 28 Like the CCR, the CDA can be used to collect data from multiple sources and multiple encounters. Unlike the CCR, the CCD has an information model based on the HL7 Reference Information Model and is extensible, while CCR is fixed. 29 During the pilot, we found that the amount of resources and time required to assemble non-document data types, such as laboratory results, into the CCD was not acceptable, and so the HealthVault API was used for all laboratory results, medications, and allergies. For documents, the MHS has standardized sharing of clinical documents using the CDA. Currently, clinical documents such as discharge summary are out of scope for the CCR. 19 Despite the richness of the CDA metadata in describing document type and origin, Microsoft HealthVault did not capitalize on the metadata in managing clinical documents. The end result was a user experience similar to Google Health where the beneficiary was required to scan and click through a potentially long list of documents to find the information of interest. During the pilot, we discovered a number of clinical documents stored within our system of record that failed to validate against Microsoft HealthVault CCD schema. We designed MiCARE to convert these documents to PDFs and store them in HealthVault's ‘Documents (File)’ type. This too placed limitations on the user's ability to search and retrieve effectively.

Both CCR and CCD attempted to serve the same purpose of capturing a periodic episode of care. Google and Microsoft adopted two different approaches to constructing a longitudinal record from summary records. With Google Health, each incoming CCR was automatically parsed into discrete data elements. In Microsoft HealthVault, the user was required to manually select which data element, from the CCR or CCD, to store in the record by using a ‘reconcile’ process in the HealthVault user interface known as the HealthVault Shell.

Lessons learned

In the development and implementation of the MiCARE pilot, we realized four lessons learned which may be useful to others considering PHR adoption.

Data-transfer decisions (eg, push vs pull) are important and may influence system performance. We found that most of our MiCARE beneficiaries elected to transfer all of their health data into the PHR. Initially, the transfer of data occurred automatically as the data became available in the source system. However, the impact of substantial data transfer had a negative effect on the speed of the system which was not acceptable for the users. We made a decision during the pilot to eliminate automatic data transfer in favor of data transfer at the patient's request.

Issues surrounding purposeful delays in reporting and the sensitive nature of some clinical data in PHRs should be thoughtfully considered and discussed with key stakeholders. Some healthcare organizations, for example, provide laboratory results in the PHR as soon as they are available. In MiCARE, our provider panel requested a 7-day delay in the release of clinical results to facilitate sufficient time for the provider to contact the patient and explain the results prior to publication. While this policy was in conflict with the beneficiary panel request for instant access to their health data, we perceived that by not adopting the wait period, we would negatively affect provider acceptance and adoption. Additionally, in the absence of state or federal regulation, our provider panel decided that lab results related to sexually transmitted diseases findings, pregnancy results, and positive cancer findings would require contact from the provider and not be released into MiCARE without the request of patient and provider concurrence.

It is important to understand and map how the PHR may affect the providers' clinical workflow. Providers in our pilot found accessing the PHR to be a little disruptive in their clinical workflow. Feedback received from our provider panel included a recommendation to better integrate data from the MHS central data repository with PHR data to give a more complete view of individual patient records and a dashboard view of their patient panels for use in the provider's clinical workflow.

Decisions on what a patient may choose to share with their provider in their PHR is worthy of consideration and debate. The ability of a patient to exclude PHR information from their provider may result in the participating provider making clinical judgments with incomplete information which could result in negative unintended consequences. For example, there could be serious cardiac complications if a patient who is on an antipsychotic agent decides to hold that information from their cardiologist prescribing treatment with an antiarrhythmic agent. This can create a tension between patient control of health information and patient safety, which in turn may have an unintended consequence of lower provider acceptance of the PHR as a useful tool.

Although the PHR is being viewed as an empowering tool for patients, adoption is limited in part due to implementation barriers. We have adopted a third-party interconnected PHR model that incorporates national CCD and CCR standards. By adopting these standards, MiCARE and similar PHRs can move closer toward realizing a national goal of a portability and interoperability. Additional work remains in the full implementation of standards by both Google and Microsoft in improving the usability for both patients and providers.

By leveraging Microsoft and Google storage and infrastructure, our MiCARE pilot offered beneficiaries readily available access to their health information and use of PHR functionalities in Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, or from optional third-party applications (eg, data import from medical devices, health-risk assessment tools) provided by Microsoft and Google's partners. While our providers and patients agreed on the desirability of various PHR functionalities, they were conflicted with respect to certain implementation choices. A central challenge faced when moving beyond pilot to full-system implementation is the emerging tension between access to health information and organizationally adopted business practices.

Acknowledgments

The contributions of J McCaffree, S Shore, T Nelson, K Allison, and E Eichost have been extremely valuable in the development of the MiCARE portal. The authors are also grateful to L Fagan for his reviews and to the many Microsoft and Google developers and administrators who were extremely supportive of the project.

Funding: Project funding was received from the DoD (Health Affairs) and the TRICARE Management Activity, project # 02EA3TTAUJ.

Competing interests: None.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• 1. Roblin DW, Houston TK, 2nd, Allison JJ, et al. Disparities in use of a personal health record in a managed care organization. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009;16:683–9 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Miller HD. Need for ePHRs to address critical problems in US healthcare. In: Miller HD, Yasnoff WA, Burde HA, eds. Personal Health Records: The Essential Missing Element in 21st Century Healthcare. Chicago: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, 2009:1–11 [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Lober WB, Zierler B, Herbaugh A, et al. Barriers to the use of a personal health record by an elderly population. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006:514–18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, et al. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:121–6 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Rhodes HB. The PHR quandary. Despite the benefits, issues of technology and trust slow adoption. J AHIMA 2007;78:66–7, 69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Detmer D, Bloomrosen M, Raymond B, et al. Integrated personal health records: transformative tools for consumer-centric care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008;8:45. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Johnston D, Kaelber D, Pan EC, et al. A framework and approach for assessing the value of personal health records (PHRs). AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:374–8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Dullabh P, Burke-Bebee S. Emerging Approaches to PHR Design, Development and Use. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:937. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Rode D. PHR debates. The personal record gets political, but there is danger in rushing legislation. J AHIMA 2008;79:18, 20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Kaelber D, Pan EC. The value of personal health record (PHR) systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:343–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Miller DY, William A, Howard B. Personal Health Record. Chicago: HIMSS, 2009 [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Tang PC, Lee TH. Your doctor's office or the Internet? Two paths to personal health records. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1276–8 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Gimbel RW, Clyburn CA. Toward a DoD/VA longitudinal health record: politics and the policy landscape. Mil Med 2009;174:S4–11 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Collmann J. Force health protection: the mission and political context of the longitudinal health record. Mil Med. 2009;174(5):S12–20 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Hufnagel SP. National electronic health record interoperability chronology. Mil Med 2009;174:S35–42 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Goth G. A game changer? As Google and Microsoft put their PHR plays into action, CIOs formulate their next moves. Healthc Inform 2008;25:52–4 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Center MAM Facility Overview & Statistics. 2010. http://www.mamc.amedd.army.mil/PAO/Overview&Stats.htm (accessed 7 Oct 2010).
• 18. Keselman A, Slaughter L, Smith CA, et al. Towards consumer-friendly PHRs: patients' experience with reviewing their health records. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:399–403 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Ferranti JM, Musser RC, Kawamoto K, et al. The clinical document architecture and the continuity of care record: a critical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:245–52 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Merrill M. Patients, referring docs at MD Anderson making good use of web portal. Physician practices and ambulatory care. Healthcare IT News, 6 July 2010. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/patients-referring-docs-md-anderson-making-good-use-web-portal (accessed 7 Dec 2010). [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Halamka JD, Mandl KD, Tang PC. Early experiences with personal health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:1–7 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Simborg DW. The limits of free speech: the PHR problem. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009;16:282–3 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Kim MI, Johnson KB. Personal health records: evaluation of functionality and utility. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9:171–80 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Bodily NJ, Carlston DA, Rocha RA. Personal health records: key features within existing applications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:875. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Lobach DF, Willis JM, Macri JM, et al. Perceptions of Medicaid beneficiaries regarding the usefulness of accessing personal health information and services through a patient Internet portal. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006:509–13 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Evaluation of the TRICARE program fiscal year 2009 report to Congress. 28 February 2009. http://www.tricare.mil/hpae/_docs/TRICARE09_4-7-09.pdf (accessed 7 Dec 2010).
• 27. Gimbel RW, Pangaro L, Barbour G. America's undiscovered laboratory for health services research. Med Care 2010;48:751–6 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Benson T. Continuity of Care Document (CCD). Principles of Health Interoperability HL7 and SNOMED. London: Springer, 2010:156–60 [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Beebe C, et al. The HL7 clinical document architecture. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:552–69 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (201.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Microsoft HealthVault Community Connect and the compelling results from their study with the Cleveland Clinic

Felasfa Wodajo, MD | March 2, 2010

This is part of iMedicalApps coverage of the HIMSS 2010 Conference in Atlanta, Georgia

A common cause of annoyance for patients is filling out the same forms over and over again.  While just about every adult has experienced this issue, the deeper problem is a single patient will almost always have more than one physician or caregiver. This means the repetitive form filling is really the tip of a much more serious problem of data in silos, with each physician and hospital treating the patient from scratch, exchanging information via faxed notes or (mostly missed) phone calls.

Patient Case Example:

Take the simple example of a female middle aged patient who suddenly experiences chest pain after dinner one night.  She goes to the nearest emergency room and has a rapid and extensive evaluation. Let’s say the results did not point to a heart attack, but there were indeed some abnormalities on the ECG.  The patient ends up being discharged home with the ED physician writing gastroesopheageal reflux as a possible cause, and instructing the patient to follow up with a cardiologist and their primary care physician. The next morning the patient will call the cardiologist and show up in his office that afternoon. In their hand is…..nothing, but they do remember the abnormal ECG they had in the ED.

The patient has no records from the hospital’s ED and unfortunately does not have the PCP’s ECG from last year showing the same abnormality. The cardiologist gets a new ECG, and puts them on a beta blocker and aspirin. The next day the patient goes to their PCP carrying….nothing. The PCP sees the pill bottles and assumes they must have had a heart attack and orders more labs and sends them for a cardiac CT. All this for a simple case of gastroesophageal reflux? It’s not unheard of.

PHRs – Microsoft’s Announcement at HIMSS

Personal health records (PHRs) are the patient component of electronic health records (EHRs) and both Microsoft [ Health Vault ] and Google [ Google Health ] are designing software platforms that use them as the key to communication among physicians and hospitals. The concept is simple: any individual can create a free account and store their health records online and give various entities (doctors, hospitals) permission to access them. In this instance, however, Microsoft’s deep enterprise roots gives it a major advantage in hospital integration.

This was demonstrated at HIMSS when they announced Microsoft HealthVault Community Connect to complement their PHR. This software platform seamlessly connects the hospital’s clinical and registration records to the patient’s personal Health Vault.  For example, this allows the patient to log in and pre-register for appointments and fill out all their forms on-line – before they walk in. Hospitals can develop custom “portals” where verified patients can log in to view and download their information – patients can also give permission for the hospital to automatically populate their PHR as soon as they are discharged.

The patients’ physicians can also access the same web portal.  So in our example, the cardiologist would have been able to see the ER physician’s impression of GE reflux as the source of chest pain and the unchanged ECG and stopped there. Even more impressive, if the cardiologist’s office uses one of the many ambulatory EHRs that already integrate with Microsoft’s Health Vault, such as Allscripts, they could directly enter the information from the patient’s PHR into their office EHR. If they do not have Health Vault integration, they can download it as a text (XML) file or print it out and scan it into their EHR.

Microsoft and the Cleveland Clinic Study

Microsoft also has a mature hospital data integration platform named “Amalga” which sits atop existing hospital clinical systems and allows for a single point of analysis. Physicians can tailor how they view clinical information (labs, etc) instead of using the stock interfaces of EHRs, financial people can perform analysis of payment trends, and just about any type of data can be manipulated.

While other “business intelligence” products are available for the enterprise, Microsoft says Amalga is a new category of hospital software due to the extensive hooks it has into the hospitals’ existing systems as well as the real-time data stream it can generate. Amalga was of particular interest to me since it is the current incarnation of a “Azyxxi”, a software package that was written in-house where I trained at Washington Hospital Center and an example of a group of physicians who started out by solving a local problem in their emergency room then very successfully sold their product to a large software house. This may also be seen as a sign that the increasing attention of the IT industry to the health sector may herald even more rapid and clinically significant innovation.

Login to iMedicalApps.

• Username / Email
• Remember Me
• Lost your password?

Your password has been successfully reset! Log in to continue.

Please login or register on iMedicalApps, the registration process is free.

Login on the left or click the register button below to proceed.

Thanks for your submission, please share this app review

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on new medicalapps!

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

• DOI: 10.1007/s12553-013-0049-4
• Corpus ID: 72459105

Evaluation of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health personal health records

• Published in Health technology 24 February 2013
• Computer Science, Medicine

12 Citations

Consumer facing health care systems, the usability study for the personal health record systems, comprehensive personal health knowledge graph for effective management and utilization of personal health data, personal health record systems as boundary objects, electronic personal health record assessment methodology: a review, computer-aided big healthcare data (bhd) analytics, exploring the far side of mobile health: information security and privacy of mobile health apps on ios and android, ambient intelligent model for life reinforcement, balancing patient control and practical access policy for electronic health records via blockchain technology, ehealth cloud security challenges: a survey, 38 references, comparative evaluation of google health api vs. microsoft healthvault api, evaluation framework for personal health records: microsoft healthvault vs. google health.

• Highly Influential

Supporting chronic disease care quality: Design and implementation of a health service and its integration with electronic health records

Personal health records: evaluation of functionality and utility., personal health records on the internet: a snapshot of the pioneers at the end of the 20th century, personal health records: protecting behavioral health consumers' rights, the value of personal health records. a joint position statement for consumers of health care., e-health hazards: provider liability and electronic health record systems, what do patients do with access to their medical records, public trust and privacy in shared electronic health records., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Microsoft is closing its HealthVault patient-records service on November 20

• NASA has a problem, and it's offering up to $3 million if you have a solution
• Forget Wi-Fi: How to add a wired network to your home without Ethernet cable
• The iPad Mini 7 is almost perfect - except for one critical missing feature
• The best noise-canceling earbuds you can buy: Expert tested

Microsoft is dropping its HealthVault patient records-management service, the company notified customers via email today, April 5.  The service will be shut down on November 20 and any data residing in the service will be deleted after that date.

HealthVault was one of the last pieces left of Microsoft's original foray into first-part health services products. Recently, Microsoft officials said they were ending support for the Microsoft Health Dashboard applications and services as of May 31 . Early last year, Microsoft dropped its HealthVault Insights application . HealthVault is a service for storing individuals' health and medical records and information so they can be shared with health professionals. Microsoft launched a beta of HealthVault in 2007 and went live with the service in 2009. Microsoft was still updating its HealthVault documentation on the docs.microsoft.com site as of December 2018.

Here's the text of the email Microsoft is sending to HealthVault customers:

"We are reaching out to you because you are a registered user of the HealthVault service. We are providing you this notice to ensure you are aware of an important development:

"The Microsoft HealthVault service will be shut down as of November 20, 2019. "Data you have in your HealthVault account will be deleted effective November 20, 2019. If you wish to keep the data in your account, you need to take action now to transfer that data from your HealthVault account. "Please take appropriate action to move your data or information you may have stored in your HealthVault account. To help customers that wish to transfer their data out of HealthVault, several options are available and described below. "If you are using an Application (mobile, web, etc.) that is dependent on the HealthVault service, such applications may also stop working once the HealthVault service is shut down. Please reach out to the Application provider for information on their plans. "We appreciate your use of the HealthVault Service. If you have questions regarding this communication please do not hesitate to reach out to HealthVault Customer Support."

Microsoft is not giving up on the healthcare market. In February this year , Microsoft Healthcare announced it was making generally available its Healthcare Bot Service; adding more healthcare-specific features to Teams; and adding new health-record integration capabilities to Azure and Teams. But like it has been doing on many fronts lately , it seems to be getting out of the consumer-facing part of the business.

Microsoft made its initial foray into healthcare over a decade ago, but ended up  retrenching and selling off most of the health assets it originally acquired . A couple of years ago, Microsoft announced it was creating  a new healthcare-focused research unit, Healthcare NExT .  Healthcare is one of Microsoft's highest priority verticals, as it's a growing and pervasive market.  

Microsoft is suggesting users who want to transfer or export their data to another personal health record provider contact Get Real Health (U.S. and international customers) and/or FollowMyHealth (U.S. customers only).

According to Get Real Health's April 5, 2019 press release , "by simply clicking on three buttons, HealthVault account holders will have data migrated to Get Real Health's Lydia platform." Lydia provides native Apple and Android apps; the ability to upload health data from any doctor or hospital; and "continuity of using HealthVault credentials for Lydia login." 

(Thanks to Chamila Udukumbura on Twitter for the heads up on the HealthVault news.)

8 reasons to avoid the latest Windows 11 update (hint: they're all bugs)

Grab a microsoft office pro and windows 11 pro bundle for 87% off, spiceworks invites zdnet readers to its spiceworld 2024 it conference - with a 40% discount.

Microsoft HealthVault is officially shutting down in November

While the end of HealthVault is admission of failure for the company's initial forays into health, Microsoft has refocused its efforts in the industry toward the enterprise market.

Share Options

Share a link too this article

• Copy Link Copy Link

Microsoft’s ambition to create its own web-based personal health record system will come to an end on November 20, when the company is officially pulling the plug on its HealthVault service and deleting user data stored on the platform.

Users have the option to migrate their data to other personal health record services like  Get Real Health and FollowMyHealth . The company also recommended that customers using third-party apps that integrate with HealthVault should contact developers to insure continuation of service.

Get Ready for HLTH 2024: A Preview Guide

HLTH 2024, scheduled for October 20-23 at the Venetian Expo Center in Las Vegas, will highlight new programming, a physicians roundtable, generative AI, the shifting landscapes of telemedicine, retail health, women's health, and lots more.

HealthVault was initially started with the mission of allowing patients to collect their own data on their terms, which would then be harnessed to create applications and additional healthcare services.

While the service launched with prominent partners including the American Heart Association, Johnson & Johnson and Allscripts, HealthVault suffered from many of the same issues that felled its competitor Google Health.

Google Health, the search giant’s personal health information service was introduced in 2008 and ended three years later because of low user adoption. Ironically, one of the services suggested by Google when their own record system wound down was HealthVault.

Microsoft struggled with creating a sustainable business model around HealthVault and integrations with companies like Fitbit were abandoned over the years.

Upcoming Webinar: Battle of the Budget: Employers vs. Rising Healthcare Costs

Gain valuable knowledge and practical insights on how employers are addressing an increasingly complex healthcare budget landscape.

Earlier this year, Microsoft scrapped its HealthVault Insights app , which applied machine learning to patient data to unlock personalized health insights. In March, the company said it was also going drop support for its Microsoft Band wearable and Microsoft Health dashboard, offering refunds to some users.

While the end of HealthVault is an admission of failure for the company’s initial forays into health, Microsoft has refocused its efforts in the industry toward the enterprise market.

Reflecting a larger shift at the company away from consumer-facing technologies, Microsoft has instead launched new provider and health plan-focused products meant to allow clinicians to communicate and share notes securely, assist in patient navigation and remove technical barriers to interoperability.

Recently, Microsoft announced Gary Moore as the company’s corporate vice president of health technologies and alliances, charged with forging partnerships with existing healthcare stakeholders.

The company is also a leading cloud provider in healthcare with its Azure platform competing head to head with rivals like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud.

Taking the baton from products like Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, Apple has made major inroads with its Apple Health Records system.

Since its launch in 2018, the company has signed up more than 140 provider and health system partners and recently struck a deal with the VA to provide personal health records for veterans.

In a preliminary study on the effectiveness of Apple Health Records on patients, UC San Diego researchers pointed to a few factors that could lead Apple’s personal health record effort to succeed, where other tech giants have failed.

Chief among these were the near-universal adoption of mobile technology (like the iPhone), advances in connected devices (like the Apple Watch) that can continuously monitor and collect health data and the introduction of new data standards allowing for better sharing and connection with health system records.

Picture: Ekkaluck, Getty Images

More From MedCity News

New Study Shows That Waymark Reduces ED, Hospital Visits for Medicaid Patients

Nearly 7,000 US Healthcare Devices & Records Are Exposed to the Public Internet, Research Shows

Gilead Sciences Voluntarily Pulls Drug for Bladder Cancer After Trial Failure

Overcoming Pharma’s Major Pain Points and Pitfalls With AI

Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare

Discover how Microsoft helps organizations shape a healthier future with data and AI

Get more value from your data, uncover actionable insights, and enhance patient care

Deliver meaningful outcomes

Create connected experiences

Empower your workforce, unlock the value of your data, solutions for health and life sciences .

Payors and insurers

Life sciences

Healthcare data solutions in microsoft fabric.

See how organizations are reimagining healthcare

“AI allows Kry clinicians to focus on delivering better care, while ensuring patients can access the advice, care, and treatment they need in the most efficient way.”

“With Azure, we are well-equipped to scale and meet the increasing demand for our services.”

“We are able to use [the Cloud for Healthcare platform] to tackle business problems, clinical problems, and user experience problems.”

“Nobody is suggesting video is right for every consultation – it’s just a great way to add volume and flexibility to your service.”

Explore the Microsoft partner ecosystem

Discover products for healthcare, microsoft fabric, power platform, microsoft cloud for healthcare , nuance dax copilot, microsoft teams.

Protect health information

Discover valuable resources.

How Microsoft and Nuance empower radiologists with AI-powered solutions

Breaking down AI: Real applications in healthcare

Enhancing healthcare delivery with cloud solutions

Make the most of Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare with online resources

Stay informed about Microsoft healthcare initiatives

Find your cloud solution

Stay informed about Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare

AI-powered assistant

• Global Edition

Microsoft will officially shut down HealthVault later this year

Last year when Microsoft announced the end of HealthVault Insights , an app-based project applying machine learning to personal health records, it came with the assurance that users’ data would remain housed on the HealthVault website.

However, it seems the time has come to officially bid farewell to Microsoft’s decade-spanning health management service. In an email letter sent to users late last week, the company set November 20 as the platform’s expiration date.

"Data you have in your HealthVault account will be deleted effective November 20, 2019. If you wish to keep the data in your account, you need to take action now to transfer that data from your HealthVault account,” the company wrote in its message ( included here on ZDNet ). “If you are using an Application (mobile, web, etc.) that is dependent on the HealthVault service, such applications may also stop working once the HealthVault service is shut down. Please reach out to the Application provider for information on their plans.”

Microsft outlined a handful of options in the email for users wishing to move their data to a third-party service. Among these was Get Real Health ’s Lydia platform, which according to a release will handle the complete migration of user data in as few as three clicks.

“We applaud Microsoft for launching HealthVault and launching millions of users on the journey to better health,” Robin Wiener, Get Real Health’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Now we want to give those people even better tools to use that data in more meaningful ways to improve habits and overall wellness.”

FollowMyHealth was also named by Microsoft as an option for users wishing to migrate their data, according to ZDNet.

WHY IT MATTERS

First established in 2007,  Microsoft’s HealthVault  has long offered consumers and businesses a platform to record and share electronic health data. Along with serving as the backbone of the aforementioned HealthVault Insights tool, the health record platform complemented Microsoft’s other forays into personal health management, such as the fitness-focused Health Dashboard ( which also got the axe just last month ).

Taken together, the closures would suggest that Microsoft is taking a step back from consumer-focused health products and services. Rather, the tech company’s recent updates to its Microsoft Teams platform and the reveal of the HoloLens 2 give the impression that Microsoft is instead focusing its health-related efforts toward enterprise markets.

WHAT’S THE TREND

It could be argued that HealthVault had a pretty good run compared to other early health platforms. Google Health launched around the same time as HealthVault but was shuttered in 2012 to make way for Google Fit , which also ran dry in March. Both services were preceded by Revolution Health , a venture led by AOL's Steve Case which only lasted a few years past the 2007 launch of its web portal, and the Dossia Consortium , founded in 2006 and laid to rest in 2016.

On the other hand, the consumer-focused Apple Health Records seems to be gaining steam with dozens of participating organizations (including most recently the Department of Veterans Affairs ) while startups Ciitizen and RDMD have also seen interest from investors.

Consumerization of Healthcare

In April, we'll look at the consumerization of healthcare from a variety of angles, including how to treat patients as customers.

More regional news

Apple study highlights limitations of LLMs

Veris Health receives $1.8M NIH grant for cancer care

Lenovo launches photorealistic 3D avatar to converse with dementia patients

Editor's Pick

More stories.

• Learning Center
• Privacy Policy

MobiHealthNews:

The latest news in digital health delivered daily to your inbox.

Search form

Top stories.

Microsoft’s HealthVault is set to close on November 20

Jack Wilkinson

April 7, 2019

Microsoft HealthVault is a service that was announced back in 2007 that aimed to offer a service for users to securely store their personal health records.

HealthVault has had a rocky existence since its announcement. The service had apps originally for Windows 8 and the mobile equivalent, which were later removed due to “compatibility issues”. Subsequently, apps under the HealthVault Insights brand were launched for iOS, Android, and Windows 10 Mobile, which too were scrapped a year later.

In an email sent to registered users of HealthVault, uncovered by ZDNet , Microsoft said:

We are reaching out to you because you are a registered user of the HealthVault service. We are providing you this notice to ensure you are aware of an important development: The Microsoft HealthVault service will be shut down as of November 20, 2019. Data you have in your HealthVault account will be deleted effective November 20, 2019. If you wish to keep the data in your account, you need to take action now to transfer that data from your HealthVault account. Please take appropriate action to move your data or information you may have stored in your HealthVault account. To help customers that wish to transfer their data out of HealthVault, several options are available and described below. If you are using an Application (mobile, web, etc.) that is dependent on the HealthVault service, such applications may also stop working once the HealthVault service is shut down. Please reach out to the Application provider for information on their plans. We appreciate your use of the HealthVault Service. If you have questions regarding this communication please do not hesitate to reach out to HealthVault Customer Support.

Microsoft warns users to move their data to another storage solution, as it will otherwise be lost. Additionally, apps that are dependent on HealthVault may stop working.

HealthVault is scheduled to shut down on November 20.

Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo are being investigated by the UKs Competition and Markets Authority

Microsoft news recap: xbox game pass ultimate subscription info, microsoft’s hr investigating sexual harassment, and more.

OnMSFT.com is built on:

Wordpress GeneratePress Azure

Theme thanks to heather.

Home About Contact Us

Join our team, © copyright 2014 - 2024 onmsft.com llc.

Microsoft customer stories

See how Microsoft tools help companies run their business.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Partnership

Partner with Microsoft

Maximize your partnership

Strengthen your security

Compare offerings

Benefits Guide

Go to market

Marketing resources

Commercial marketplace

Sell with Microsoft

Cloud Solution Provider

New commerce experience

Partner incentives

Differentiate

Solutions Partner designations

Specializations

Azure Expert MSP

By opportunity

Device partners

Learning partners

Education partners

By solution area

Solution areas

Azure for partners

Business Applications for partners

Modern Work for partners

Security for partners

By initiative

Build for 2030

Inclusive economy

MCAPS Start for Partners

Microsoft Ignite

Partner of the Year Awards

Partner Communities

Microsoft Partner Community

Partner-led associations

Microsoft Partner blog

Partner success stories

Program resources

Find a partner

Partner Center

All Microsoft

Wiz uncovers the alchemy of the Microsoft commercial marketplace

October 7, 2024

Serving security teams around the globe—including 40% of the Fortune 100— Wiz was founded in 2020 to provide a unified cloud security platform for prevention, active detection, and response. In just 18 months, and with 1,200 employees and over $100 million in annual recurring revenue, the Microsoft partner experienced near-exponential growth thanks to their unique business strategy, which centers on the Microsoft commercial marketplace.

With more than 70% of Wiz's business billed through cloud marketplaces—and the Microsoft commercial marketplace being a large percentage—they've cut their sales cycle by up to 20%. Ayla Anderson, Microsoft Global Alliance Manager at Wiz, believes a cloud marketplace-first approach is the future of business—and Wiz's meteoric rise is the proof.

Their success and innovation in the marketplace earned them a 2024 Microsoft Partner of the Year Award  for Commercial Marketplace in the Business Transformation category. "This award is really a representation of the strategy that we took and Wiz's partnership with Microsoft, and it's an exciting recognition," said Anderson.

Choosing the commercial marketplace

Before Wiz went all-in on the Microsoft commercial marketplace, they started with an enterprise-first sales approach. Because of that, Anderson explained, many of Wiz's customers were also Microsoft Azure customers—which meant they had cloud consumption commitments and an established relationship with Microsoft.

With the understanding of who their customers were—and how they could make it easier to do business with them—Wiz's leadership team knew what tapping into the commercial marketplace could also mean for their own business. "At a very early stage, we hired a VP of Alliances who fully understood the potential of marketplace. Then we started seeing internal data showing all the benefits ... it was more efficient," said Anderson. "With [the commercial marketplace], we're basically taking the last part of the deal and shortening it from weeks to a few days. We're tying all the ends and creating this triangle between the customer, Microsoft, and Wiz to make this process faster and more affordable for the customers through the marketplace."

"We're tying all the ends and creating this triangle between the customer, Microsoft, and Wiz to make this process faster and more affordable for the customers through the marketplace."

Wiz's multifaceted marketplace approach.

When it comes to capturing opportunity in the commercial marketplace, Wiz takes full advantage of the platform's capabilities and initiatives to drive profitability while strengthening their customer relationships.

For Wiz, collaborative selling—or co-sell—is one of the most powerful aspects of the marketplace. "Co-sell could be a revenue generator, it could be a pipeline accelerator, it could be a relationship builder," Anderson said. "When you launch a proactive co-sell approach, Microsoft collaborates with you on an opportunity, they help you throughout the sales process, and then the deal goes through the marketplace. I think this is a super important piece in an ISV's strategy today. You cannot ignore it, because if you don't do it, your competitors will."

Marketplace Rewards

Through Marketplace Rewards , Wiz worked with Microsoft to create a credit incentive program to promote offers with customers through the marketplace. During a three-month campaign, Wiz used Azure sponsorship credits to close over a dozen competitive deals, resulting in a 1,500% ROI —and motivating more customers to adopt the marketplace.

The Wiz Alliances team

To proactively promote their solutions on the marketplace, Wiz established a dedicated internal team. Each seller that joins Wiz goes through the commercial marketplace and co-sell onboarding and certification. From there, they work closely with their Microsoft Alliance team to review their pipeline and come up with strategies for promoting their marketplace solutions for each deal.

Because of the customer and partnership value Wiz experiences with the marketplace, the Wiz Alliances team is incentivized to generate marketplace deals, and they have a dedicated commission plan for opportunities—which sparked their massive revenue growth in the past year.

Scaling through the channel

"Wiz is not only a marketplace-first company, but a partner-first company in our sales strategy—and that means that almost all the deals in our pipelines have a channel partner," said Anderson. Channel partners serve as a bridge between Microsoft partners and customers, collaborating with Microsoft to market, sell, and support products and services. "They not only personally know the decision-makers, but they also know the customer's cloud environment, needs, budgets, and KPIs."

With multiparty private offers , Wiz can scale through channel partners who have trusted relationships with customers who Wiz may not otherwise have access to. Through the marketplace, Wiz can send a private offer to the channel partner, who can then sell to the customer—simplifying the sales and procurement process for everyone involved.

The earlier Wiz can get channel partners involved in the process, the better—so they can help nurture the prospect relationships all the way up through the process of closing a deal. "And by that point, we want to be in a place where the prospect already feels happy with the engagement and results," Anderson said.

The channel partner plays a vital role in that, which is why Wiz is so intentional about onboarding them with certifications and a deep understanding of the Wiz vision and product. Wiz also has co-sell eligible Azure solutions, which means 100% of the channel partner customer's purchase counts toward their Azure cloud consumption commitment—giving them more value for their investment. "That really helped us close so many deals we probably wouldn't have closed if there wasn't a channel partner along the way," said Anderson.

"I'm excited about the marketplace because I think this is just the beginning, and we are going to see the increased use of marketplace by customers, channel partners, and ISVs over the next couple of years."

Transforming the way business is done, one partner at a time.

With their experience and success, Wiz wants to empower other partners who develop software to make the most of what the marketplace has to offer. "Other partners and people in the industry come to us to hear our story of how and why we use the marketplace in our go-to-market strategy, and we tell them about the technical part, the operational part, and how we use it for beneficial co-sell conversations," Anderson said.

Wiz knows firsthand how cloud marketplaces can drive revenue and efficiency, but more than that, they believe in their potential to transform entire industries.

"I'm excited about the marketplace because I think this is just the beginning, and we are going to see the increased use of marketplace by customers, channel partners, and ISVs over the next couple of years," Anderson said. "It will be exponential, and we're thrilled to be in front of the curve."

And Wiz is at the forefront of the marketplace-first movement. While they continue paving the way for other partners to capture the marketplace opportunity, Wiz is determined to hit their next milestone: billing 100% of their revenue through cloud marketplaces. Backed by their partnership with Microsoft and innovative approach, they just might.

Grow with the commercial marketplace

Go to wiz's marketplace video, explore more partner success stories.