rampage24life

Thanks for the list of companies. Some of the companies we looked into are either dead or does not exist anymore. Some companies like GetMedal, BloomAPI, and Doctrly have been on our radar as well.

There is a difference between us and the list of companies listed here. I would love to talk more with you if you want. The more help we find, the better of a product we can make based on the people's perspective.

Totally agree with your first comment. We have talked to a lot of people ranging from young to old about this issue and we got a various amount of response from, "didn't know it was a problem" to "how safe can this be" to "why can't people build this awhile ago when I needed it."

Those major tech companies cannot solve this problem because they built their foundation completely wrong when tackling the electronic health record software. People like Jonathan Bush, CEO from athneaHealth, explained that the current health system needs to be wiped clean and to be start over. In some cases, big companies are trying to merge in order to solve this issue and to hope one company can rule them all. Having companies establishing channels and collaborations with hospitals is not something we fear about. What we fear most is the lack of options health record companies are not telling health care professionals about. There are better solutions out there to build a better health system. We have looked into a couple cloud based health record companies and we are hoping to work with them someday since we will feel they are on the right path on what we want to achieve as well. (patient Fusion is one of them)

That is why we want to build on this for the future. You are totally on the right track about everything you said in the last paragraph. Building this database will take time; therefore, we want to be there when the public is ready for it. This health database is just the tip of the iceberg. We already planned a path for it and how it can benefit the future as well as how it can change the way the health industry works.

Thank you for your comments and thoughts. If you have more questions or comments or anything, feel free to ask/comment. I would be happy to reply to your thoughts.

We do believe entering the health industry as a database company can be the slice we need. We feel this database is the snowball we need to get things rolling. As mentioned by another reader, big companies are spending tons of money on data storage that it is costing the public money and wasting a lot health facility money that be used elsewhere. There are plenty of big companies controlling this health sector; however, they are slower to adapt to situations since they never started off as a data company but as a software company(SaaS). With our goals in mind, we do believe this can be a huge turning point not just in the health industry, but also how people interact with health.

Hopefully I answered your questions. Please feel free to ask more or comment more. It helps us understand how everyone feels about this project.

Agreed, some huge companies are working on this issue. But to also point out, these huge companies have been working on since 2010. In addition, those companies are spending majority of their revenue on data storage and data security instead of better healthcare for patients or better facilities for physicians to operate in. What I can tell you is these companies won't play fair with each other since they all feel the need to protect their software platform on obtaining a patient's data. What makes our company different than those health record companies is the fact that we realize the end product will always be the same no matter what platform the doctor uses.

Our goal is to be like VISA credit card. Any type of bank or credit card company can use the VISA credit card and apply their own benefits on it; but we are third neutral party in charge of the data.

Countries like Canada, Germany, etc. with universal healthcare still have the same problem regarding data storage, data security, and data accessibility. If a patient from Canada ends up traveling to another country, he or she still have to face the same problem where their medical record won't be on them while traveling. Vise versa, if a patient enters Canada, he or she will also see the same problem. We want to link everything together. Sure it will take time because of politics issue, but we do believe that we are all one race. Bacteria and viruses do not care where you are or who you are, so why should we create boundaries and walls for our health data if it can help our life and save others' lives.

Hopefully I have addressed your issue. If not, please continue.

I do understand how hard this task is since there are plenty of rules and regulations that has to be checked. However, the process does need to change regarding to how health data is dealt with. Currently, we are still applying the same knowledge from the 90s about containing health data as if they were still in vanilla folders stored on top of a shelf. The same mindset has already cost the US $33 million dollars trying to patch a broken foundation in the health data industry. As of today, multiple hospitals already have been hacked because the lack of knowledge healthcare professionals have about the digital world. Sure, there are plenty of red tapes around this issue; however, our idea isn't to cut those tapes down but to assist the health industry to move into the digital realm without changing their production in the health field.

As for the second part of your comment, I was wondering if you can explain that more since I'm a bit confused. I got lost about the "one of the core fears the public has" to "sharing of medical information would become so streamlined." I don't know if you are saying if a centralized health database is a bad thing or not.

This is a huge issue that healthcare is not dealing with. Having the ability to have access of your medical record anywhere at anytime is crucial especially in emergency situation. Having the my medical ready to be used on any system is a problem caused by the multiple EHR company. It's like having different Microsoft Word programs and they all produce the same type of doc file. Yet some genius in the company thought it was smart to limit the accessibility for each software. It's like come on! You guys are all trying to do the same thing and you are trying to be secretive about it. Doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm on a mission to deal with this problem. Our medical record should be available at every medical facility in cases we check into that facility. Our data shouldn't be a problem to be read on any computer system out there. Data is simple. It's the complexity of the EHR system trying to dominate one another that causes this problem to happen.

There's a huge elephant in the room when discussing medical record, and no one is bothering to deal with it due to their own selfish needs.

felt like i was watching an "apple" keynote ad for a new product

cool piece of tech, but what got to me was the subscription. based on the FAQ, subscription cost $22-33 a month. expand that to a year, around $250-400 a year, and add it to the hardware price ($400)...total=$800. That's pretty hefty just for a tech like that. Might as well invest in a mac air instead. Sounds like this team marketed this too high.

in addition, why would you mention in your video that there will a fix subscription price and no freemium or premium package, but FAQ section, you mention you might look at other levels for more complex bundle? sounds like I might need to pull out my starburst and think about this contradiction.

seems pretty easy to build, not many obstacles are in the sky. surprised this was a break through at all...

this just feels like a video game basically. all i need to do is bring out my xbox controls and i can do exactly the same thing in my video games.