Quoting Oliver Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Tom Bowden wrote: > > > I have been expecting NEHTA to bowl in and take overall responsibility > > for making things change, Robert says (and I have heard other NEHTA > > staff echo this), that they take no responsibility for actual change > > happening or the lack of any change to date and that they exist > > therefore to develop technical specifications and architectures in the > > hope that they will be implemented. If this is the case, who does have > > responsibility for leading the transition? In fairness to NETHA, we need to work out what are we transitioning to. Is it? - An open standard for messaging - A single closed monopoly (the NZ solution as Tom describes) - Status quo: multiple exclusive providers who can't inter-communicate
There is no "half-open" model between these three. More importantly, the cross-subsidy business model and NETHA are in a fight to the death, although they don't realise it yet, as an interoperable standard of any form means this model is hosed. I am not pointing fingers here: HealthLink, MO and Argus all use this model, and they do it for the simple reason that this is what the market demands. Ultimately it's the GPs who need to get off their/our backsides and start making choices. - 5-6 messaging products each separately supported for free - 1 standard-based downloader that you must support, or pay for support. Cost is about the same due to the complexities of multiple downloaders, the second is lower in the long run as it is will encourage more people to use electronic messaging. Nevertheless most GPs both on and off this list prefer the first, given these are the people who think pharmaceutical companies should pay for their prescribing software, I'm not holding my breath. Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
