On Saturday 11 November 2006 14:32, John Mackenzie wrote: > > So it makes more sense to give it to the specialist and imaging and > > lab provider for free and charge GP's a volume fee > > No, that doesn't make sense at al, Hugh. > > It is the responsibility of pathology, radiology, > specialists and hospitals to get their results/reports > to the GP, and they are presently paying an arm > and a leg for this service. > > So, get the software freely installed at the GPs > surgery, and negotiate a competetive price for > the service with pathology, radiology and hospitals.
The problem is this business model only really works if you have exclusive lock-in of those GPs (your product can't receive messages from any other provider) so the senders have a reason to buy your product. This keeps us at the status quo of multiple downloaders on every desktop, at both ends. It's also unlikely Vic hospitals will sign on to this. As an example, currently discharges are faxed by me [1] on the fax machine costing 15c/call, more importantly, no-one else in the organisation has to get involved. Turning this into admin negotiating and signing cheques for Argus, and HealthLink, and MO, and so on, from the IT budget which funds one very overworked P2 on the ward, just isn't going to happen. Ian [1] when I can be arsed. I'll concede a moral obligation to communicate with you, but not a legal one.
pgpmuyfj7VdCC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
