healthcare

The recent report from Pew deserves some thought – and much concern.  First look at this chart – then consider (see Figure 1).  Getting information from providers – that sounds positive and most think that information is accurate.Never mind that one-third of people in the US lack a primary care provider. But the survey results go downhill from there -- getting data from people who have a similar health issue to you (a neighbor?), then past WebMD, straight to government agencies tied with news organizations, and then, where else, over to social media. Half of Pew responders say it is difficult to judge whether information is accurate.  No kidding.

For some, the jury should still be out.  Clearly the tech vendors, surrounded by media and investor enthusiasm, are proud of what they are (or almost, so, so close!) doing. The theory, of course, is that consumers are already using their tools to answer health questions, so why not formalize the offering, describing how initial usage (Boston Children’s Hospital, etc.) results are positive. Ah, but even OpenAI the company, is not so certain: When asked about ChatGPT’s reliability with health facts, a spokeswoman said its models had become more reliable and accurate in health scenarios compared with previous versions, but she also didn’t provide hard numbers showing hallucination rates when giving medical advice.

You know the experience.  You walk into the lobby of a medical practice, and the sign tells you to sign in at the kiosk. You drop your license in the slot – but the software is having a down day, and so a person emerges from behind the glass to debug it.  Meanwhile another person checks you in.  So their time savings from the device evaporate. The irritation of the patients trying to sign in grows – one announces how much he hates technology.