john dooley wrote:
Great. Good to see the quality of the pathology doesn't get a mention
as a reason to stay with a provider.
I took it as a given that I would not be willing to use any pathology
practice that I felt or suspected was not providing a quality service.
> Also to be fair, many of the other practices out there are using their
own in house developed IT delivery suites rather than the open source
argus product. Do you expect them to throw that investment away (after
many thousands of dollars invested?
Yes. The maintenance and ongoing development of each pathology
practice's own in-house downloading system, and maintaining the client
software at the GP end, is continuing to cost each pathology practice
money that it could save by using Argus and helping to spread the cost
of maintenance, further development and support of the messaging system
over a greater number of users and reduce the cost per user (users
including all senders and receivers - pathologists, radiologists, GPs,
specialists, allied health professionals, hospitals, nursing homes,
pharmacists, etc.).
In fact in that setting argus may
end up costing a provider more money (to migrate and support the server
side which is not afaik free).
I accept that there will be some short term costs in them installing
Argus server software under the current pricing.
Sonics image you are casting as an altruistic force majeur benefiting
the people is questionable. Might it have been a strategic move to
prevent any one player from jamming itself into the middleman spot,
locking up the countries messaging and charging everyone lots of money
as has happened in some other countries?
Absolutely.
Perhaps it relates to a desire
to have electronic requesting (and cut down data entry) see the
mainstream light.
Why not? Good idea.
Oh and before I go, can you enlighten us on how Sonic has been rallying
the troops to support Argus - I for one have never heard a breath of
official air from the Sonic camp to get behind argus though I have been
out of the loop a little?
I understand that Sonic has feared that if it publically promoted Argus
and told everybody that it was funding ArgusConnect, GPs and others
would perceive Argus as nothing more than a front for Sonic and that
using Argus could or would somehow lock users in to using only Sonic for
their pathology. I understand that many or most other pathology
practices and imaging practices had expressed interest in contributing
to funding Argus, because they can see the savings for themselves in
using it, but have not produced the money. I don't know why they
haven't. I suggest that each of us could ask those other pathology and
imaging practices why they have not helped to fund Argus.
And can you help me with an idea of what costs Pathology incurs to use
Argus? Last I looked it was minimum $4k to consider it (for a single Dr
pathology practice). I guess Sonic's costs would be a lot more but that
level for 1 specialist is still a fair chunk of cash.
I don't know the exact costs for each pathology practice to change to
Argus. There are some prices on the ArgusConnect Website, but I suggest
that you ask Ross Davey.
I am appalled at our government's refusal to fund Argus as part of the
essential infrastructure of the health system in Australia. The
government did provide some support early on and many approaches have
been made to government since then. I have written to the AMA, the
RACGP and ADGP urging them to lobby government to fund Argus and
ArgusConnect.
In the absence of government funding, ArgusConnect has been forced to
support itself by charging fees to at least some categories of users. I
think that the strategy has been to charge fees to those who can most
clearly see the business benefits to themselves. To date, this has been
the pathology and imaging practices that have been paying commercial
providers of messaging to deliver their results. I understand that
changing to Argus and paying Argus' fees (which I believe are once-only
licence fees and some ongoing support fees, but no fees to actually send
messages) would save the pathology and imaging practices significant
amounts compared to what they are currently paying to the commercial
providers of messaging systems.
Dont get me wrong here. Ive always been a proponent of interoperability
and standards for clinical messaging and support any system thats
prepared to interoperate. Also I heartily commend the Argus team for
their open source stance. I'll look at any open and interoperable
solution. For years Ive wanted to be able to have everyone interconnect
and have only 1 client at the GP end.
But its really about interoperating between people's systems of choice
isnt it? Not about "shifting everyone to one platform"
Can you convince me to pay money to argus to support them even though I
dont send with them and run a totally different system but can still
deliver to an argus client?
If you can deliver to an Argus client, it is still in your interest that
GPs use Argus, because it relieves you of the need to write your own
client downloading software, install it in every practice that uses your
lab, and maintain all those client installations. You could consider
donating a small amount to ArgusConnect for every GP practice that
installs Argus so that you can send your results to them via Argus.
>
> Did you ask the IMVS if they can deliver results to your argus client
> by chance?
Only for the last couple of years.
> How did they respond?
I understand that they like the Argus concept and software, and are
interested because it would save them writing and maintaining their own
downloading software. I understand that they have been waiting to see
more demand from GPs for them to use Argus. This week I expressed my
demand in what I believe is the most effective way possible, judging by
the reaction that I got from IMVS when I told them what I had done and why.
> Would you have changed if they could deliver to your argus install?
No.
> Did you install argus yourself?
>
Mostly, and with some telephone help from ArgusConnect.
Its free interoperability you want really isnt it? That way you can
choose your favorite client (clearly Argus) and I can choose my
favourite sending software and we can all live happily ever after...
Ah, bliss, as Horst would say.
Go for Argus if thats your flavour. But ask your current provider if
they can deliver to an Argus site. Support interoperability!!!
Ultimately thats what we need.
I agree that we should support interoperability.
I also believe that if we have a choice of using an open source,
not-for-profit, messaging system developed in Australia that charges no
fees to send messages, or a closed-source, proprietary commercial system
which has to generate profits for its owners, we need to find something
seriously lacking in the former before we start paying money to use the
latter.
--
Oliver Frank, general practitioner
255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens, South Australia 5086
Phone 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 Mobile 0407 181 683
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
