Where are your medical records? If you're like me, they are probably on paper scattered across the country in several hospitals, doctor offices, and military warehouses. In other words, they are absolutely useless. Now consider this: If you travel and need medical attention at an out-of-town facility, and are unable to assist in your own diagnosis, would it not make sense for the attending physician to call up your most recent records to guide him? Of course it would. But that is almost impossible today despite the pervasiveness of the Web.

A few years ago I was called to an ER where an ailing aunt lay on a gurney. She was unconscious, so the doctor asked me about her health history. What drugs was she taking? Any allergies? Age? And so on. I had no idea about most of these and suggested he check her records. Silly me, I thought he could review them online from a tablet computer, like the ones used by overnight delivery people. The doctor said he couldn't do that. The hospital lacked the technology and besides, HIPAA rules forbade it. Now that is dumb. (Not the doctor, the rules.)

To highlight the situation, consider the provocative observation of Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. He notes that when hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it destroyed millions of paper medical records. “But when the World Trade Center went down, there was no hue and cry about the loss of financial records. Those were secured, electronically and in various sites. Why the asymmetry? My guess is that the financial services industry has customers who demand value, responsiveness, and security…” Cannon may be on to something.

A government bureaucracy is unlikely to make medical records more accessible. Fortunately, the government need do nothing. Google Health says it wants to digitize your health records — X-rays, immunization records, surgeries, every doctor visit in town and out, prescriptions, and more. Of course, the idea is for you to access them anywhere in the world. Protection would be via password and other means. Several organizations are tackling the accessibility issue but more for parochial reasons such as cost cutting.

The Cleveland Clinic says it's working with Google in a pilot project to learn more. The Clinic already uses a home-grown system called MyChart that is available to Clinic patients. About 110,000 have opted for it. But it's accessable only by Clinic hospitals and doctors. Google, on the other hand, wants to make portable records available to almost anyone for nearly any hospital system.

A Google spokesperson says the goal is to offer a valuable service, drive brand loyalty, and more searches on Google.com, where the company makes its money on advertising. It says it has no plans to host ads in Google Health.

Of course, the firm's effort is the leading edge of the idea, so ramp-up will take some time. Google's pilot program with the Cleveland Clinic will provide guidance for similar developments and pinpoint potential trouble spots. Microsoft is also interested in portable medical records through a presumably similar system called Health Vault. And another company has a plan for implanting a chip that would hold your records.

The final bit of good news is that the Federal government need not spend a penny defining a system that duplicates what these and other more capable organizations have undertaken. And because these are volunteer efforts, there will be no strong-arming consumers into programs they don't want. Considering the price for tax payers, it's just about perfect.