|
Good questions. No answers J From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David More Hi Richard, Thanks for that..just one question (two barrels - sorry) Do you clearly understand just what NEHTA is trying to
achieve and do you think they are going about it the right way? All my experience suggests that if you are trying something
like this, and want it to succeed, you communicate, communicate and communicate
and build trust, confidence etc. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to say if they
think NEHTA has met that performance metric. For John - as single question also..if this direction is
correct (and I am sure much of it is - although without a top level strategy
and funds it may not be implementable in our lifetime) why all the secrecy? Cheers David On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:30:12 +0800, Richard Hosking wrote: > 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: >> 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 >>> >> 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 >> >> > __________ NOD32 1.1850 (20061102) Information
__________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. |
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
