I must be very gullible because I talked with them extensively at recent HISA conference and was most impressed at the direction they were alleged to be heading (common standard, interoperability etc etc). They seemed to be chanting all the right mantras.
Ok now I am standing back waiting to be buried under the deluge....:-) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Hosking Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Re: NEHTAs Annual Report What We are Not Being Told! 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 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
