At the risk of being seen as a contrarian, I think you guys are being a
bit unfair to NEHTA and putting a black spin on things
OK there is fluff in the report, and the detailed financial statements
are not publicly available - I cant see why this should be so.
They do have "receiveables' as assets - presumably unpaid grants. OTOH
they do have $7M in cash so they are presumably not short of money for
immediate purposes. It might be significant if some states are not
paying up while others are - this would be useful to know.
They seem to have been active in recommending standards in various
areas, though to be fair some of them are just the status quo. They have
decided on a clinical termionology and paid for it - the wrangling over
this (however important it may be - this has always eluded me) has gone
on interminably. They have decided on a web based messaging format and a
European standard for an EHR structure. They appear to have recommended
an open security framework (WS-services - is this open?). I presume this
means that PKI is not to be used for health messaging. HL7 V2 is still
recommended as an interim standard for messaging. It appears that work
towards V3 will be abandoned. (Again I have never been really clear
where HL7 fits in - it appers to be an attempt to model health
information as a schema while being a standard for wrapping messages at
the same time - perhaps someone could enlighten me)
They have been active in various meetings though I must confess I havent
been to any as I would have to pay for myself
Certainly there doesnt seem to have ben much opportunity for grassroots
providers to have input - it has been a cabal of bureaucrats and
industry people. OK they were a bit blunt to the MSIA - I wouldnt
necessarily hold that against them as the industry hasnt exactly been
helpful in setting standards as one would expect of a commercial
industry. What has happened since re industry consultation?
R
David More wrote:
Oliver,
I am stunned and deeply saddened to find any information in this
domain (i.e e-Health) should be classified in any form.
I thought the purpose of all this was saving lives not secretly
empowering bureaucrats...
Your revelation is a faith in the goodness of man challenging experience.
David.
----
Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI
Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038
Skype Username : davidgmore
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:33:42 +1030, Oliver Frank wrote:
Aus HIT Man wrote:
It then concludes with the usual statements of audit independence
and a “concise financial report” – the real report seems to be secret
“The full financial report is available to Members free of charge
upon request.” (p20). That means we want to keep the public away I
would suggest – the
members being the jurisdictional CEOs are to be the only ones who
know what is going on!.
Perhaps this is a growing fashion. HealthConnect SA has released the
Executive Summary of its "High Level "Connectivity" Options Paper"
which is labelled on
the front cover as having been re-classified as being "'C1 Low'
Public information and unrestricted access", with a note below saying
that the complete
document has been classified as "'C3 high' Limited "need to know"
access" and available by application to the HealthConnect SA office.
007, where are you
now?
I was disappointed by the Executive Summary which seemed to say
nothing new and managed to insult GPs and the Health Provider Registry
run by the Divisions
in South Australia while doing so. I am not going to chase the
complete document. Either it says something useful and we can all read
it freely or
doesn't, in which case it stay unread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
