David Guest wrote:
Greg Twyford wrote:
Certainly the NSW Alliance of Divisions of GP is thinking in terms of
a single interface point with NSW Health's system. Now I know why. You
may dial in your own degree of scepticism, as you see fit.
In the meantime the little guys can do whatever they want.
Until such times as they are crushed.
I am sure the market will reduce to at most three or four players. Who
will they be? Healthlink, eClinic, Medical Objects, ProMedicus, Argus,
Medemail? It's looking like the Northern Rivers region is to become part
of the Medical Objects camp.
David,
The states have maintained their respective railway gauges for 150+
years, so anything is possible. Qld Health's GP Connect project
explicitly supports two carriers, Medical Objects and Healthlink, so
they've learnt something, at least.
I believe the competitive markets favoured by the Feds for service
delivery (think worker's compensation, the Jobs Network, Child Care,
Aged Care, etc., etc.) may be flawed when it comes to medcomms.
Not to mention the rest of IT. Microsoft might be surprised to learn
that our current Federal government have a policy favouring competition.
Network externalities do not apply to these other areas but in comms it will
fairly quickly reduce to one dominant group unless there is insistence
that functional gateways between the top few players are maintained. Is
that part of the NSW Health contract?
I believe its a big part of the NEHTA and Standards Australia Health IT
groups agendas. Remember that the NSW Health E-Link is a trial in Hunter
and Western Sydney at this stage.
I recall a speech at a seminar a while back from the DoHA staffer
blaming Divisions for all going with Medical Director, who dominate the
GP clinical software market. When they funded GPs to computerise back in
'99, it was pretty much a two horse race, and I'm glad our guys didn't
choose Mimscript in any numbers.
I love how free market economics supporters get upset when they don't
work the way they'd like them to. Without any interoperability or
standardisation, we are probably better off with a dominant player,
rather than trying to fragment the market post hoc. At least training
and other activities, and possibly even data extraction, are simplified
that way.
I guess the laugh is that the second you impose the requirement for
interoperability and standards the market just ceased to be free.
Greg
--
Greg Twyford
Information Management & Technology Program Officer
Canterbury Division of General Practice
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph.: 02 9787 9033
Fax: 02 9787 9200
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
***********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files,
including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited
from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended
recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is
prohibited.
All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
