Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
So if I understand Johns summary any provider could go through the process of screen shot certification using a full blown open source product under EHR-S for the nominal fee. Then the vendor could promote that, and other providers could optionally certify if they wanted to - or not as the case may be. If the vendor wanted the full blown stamp of certification for the entire product then you pay the $5 - $30K. Seems like it creates a new entry point - if from that the vendor had 100 providers that wanted certification but not the hassle of the certification process they could hand over the $300 to the vendor who then can spend it and have something left over for ice cream. I think this is good for physician offices. I think the open source community should study the small print and reflect on their ideals and values. Greg http://www.patientos.org On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM, alesha wrote: > > > There have been some interesting comments posted to John Halamka's blog > this > morning regarding the new CCHIT model: > > *http://tinyurl.com/no7psf > > *Re: Edmund's post - the devil *is* in the definitions/details > > I recommend we continue to be part of the dialogue, be sure we understand > what is really being proposed, offer constructive feedback, and continue to > inform CCHIT of our business needs. Good work, so far - more good work to > do. > > .alesha > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, fred trotter > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > It appears that we have nothing but either positive comments or questions > > about what happened. > > > > Rather than try and accurately summarize, I would prefer to link in the > pdf > > that CCHIT created to cover the new certification model. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/kteyoq > > > > My inaccurate summary: > > > > They will no longer require updated certification based on version > changes. > > They will allow for site level certification. (which is open source > > friendly) > > They will allow for modular certification (different products doing > > different parts) > > > > -FT > > > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Gregory Caulton Principal at PatientOS Inc. personal email: [email protected] http://www.patientos.com corporate: (888)-NBR-1EMR || fax 857.241.3022 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
There have been some interesting comments posted to John Halamka's blog this morning regarding the new CCHIT model: *http://tinyurl.com/no7psf *Re: Edmund's post - the devil *is* in the definitions/details I recommend we continue to be part of the dialogue, be sure we understand what is really being proposed, offer constructive feedback, and continue to inform CCHIT of our business needs. Good work, so far - more good work to do. .alesha On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, fred trotter wrote: > > > It appears that we have nothing but either positive comments or questions > about what happened. > > Rather than try and accurately summarize, I would prefer to link in the pdf > that CCHIT created to cover the new certification model. > > http://tinyurl.com/kteyoq > > My inaccurate summary: > > They will no longer require updated certification based on version changes. > They will allow for site level certification. (which is open source > friendly) > They will allow for modular certification (different products doing > different parts) > > -FT > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
It appears that we have nothing but either positive comments or questions about what happened. Rather than try and accurately summarize, I would prefer to link in the pdf that CCHIT created to cover the new certification model. http://tinyurl.com/kteyoq My inaccurate summary: They will no longer require updated certification based on version changes. They will allow for site level certification. (which is open source friendly) They will allow for modular certification (different products doing different parts) -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
I was a bit unhappy with a response I received to questions about the proposed NJ Bill. It did not promote trust. -- SS [email protected] wrote: - To: [email protected] From: Tony McCormick Sent by: [email protected] Date: 06/20/2009 01:19AM cc: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0? I tend to agree, I think they have responded to the situation very well. Much better than expected. --Tony www.mi-squared. com Director, Linked IPAs, Houston fred trotter wrote: > I have not heard much about CCHIT since the townhall. I was very > pleased, they addressed all of the issues I was concerned with. > > Everyone I have spoken with seems satisfied. I am inclined to embrace > the new verification models whole hog. > > Can anyone think of a reason not to? Any lingering or new concerns? It > seems like a complete ( and mutual) victory but I just want to be sure > that we are not missing something. > > -ft > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
I tend to agree, I think they have responded to the situation very well. Much better than expected. --Tony www.mi-squared.com Director, Linked IPAs, Houston fred trotter wrote: > I have not heard much about CCHIT since the townhall. I was very > pleased, they addressed all of the issues I was concerned with. > > Everyone I have spoken with seems satisfied. I am inclined to embrace > the new verification models whole hog. > > Can anyone think of a reason not to? Any lingering or new concerns? It > seems like a complete ( and mutual) victory but I just want to be sure > that we are not missing something. > > -ft > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
I just reviewed the slides (didn't make the call due to time difference) but it does look good. I would still like to see a 'self-certification' option where the vendor performs testing and issues a 'statement of compliance' similar to the ihe.net process but the current options are good. I think the changes on version control are excellent. This makes the very logical assumption that upgraded and enhanced versions will continue to meet certification requirements. I think that CCHIT has been very responsive to concerns. Regards, Mark On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:12 AM, fred trotter wrote: > I have not heard much about CCHIT since the townhall. I was very > pleased, they addressed all of the issues I was concerned with. > > Everyone I have spoken with seems satisfied. I am inclined to embrace > the new verification models whole hog. > > Can anyone think of a reason not to? Any lingering or new concerns? It > seems like a complete ( and mutual) victory but I just want to be sure > that we are not missing something. > > -ft > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Mark Spohr, MD
