Hi Tim, 3 points:
1.. The fees go to allow certification to continue - not anywhere else - are certification bodies not allowed to recover their costs? Is Standards Australia meant to do it all for free? (They a'int! and we are all being ripped off as best I can tell) Frankly you need to recognize this is the way our Government and the US seem to insist things are organised these days..my preference would have been for a totally government funded body to do all this...but..when was the last time any government entity did this sort of stuff for free (think TGA and its fees etc) 2. This, very inexpensive effort in national US terms, is so far ahead of what is happening here (in OZ) is it grumpifying as far as I am concerned. 3. Note - At least one open-source solution is going for it..sorry it has to pay but that is the world a majority of us (under Howard and Bush) voted for - so what can I do.? I sure didn't vote for it! The CCHIT is happening, its working and there is 'stuff all' happening in OZ along the same - very important - lines. Ostrich all you like - this is fundamentally good stuff CCHIT are doing and it is being done on the 'smell or an oily rag' in a relative sense. Seems you want to have poor quality non-interoperable GP software to go on forever in OZ - or have I got it wrong and you really would like some decent quality control etc? Cheers 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 Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:32:16 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > David More wrote: >> Hi Oliver, >> >> They are about 2 years into the program. >> >> They are also about 1 year into certifying hospital systems. >> >> Now that they have 40+ systems certified (at $US28,000 per time) >> > There has been much discussion of these fees on the international open > health list - fees of such magnitude effectively exclude open source and > community-based solutions. Not only that, they want the US$28k for every new version > to be re-tested. So, if a vendor puts out a minor point release, ka-ching > (sound of cash register), another $28k please. And their justification is that it > takes person-time to re-do the tests. Seems they've never heard of an > automated test - write the tests once, re-run at the push of a button, which is how all > software should be tested as it is built these days. Thus, CCHIT is a farce > in practice (Horst can supply some suitably colourful epithets here). A bit like > accreditation of general practices here in Oz, perhaps? > > Tim C > >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:10:27 +1030, Oliver Frank wrote: >>> David More wrote: >>>> Hi Oliver, >>>> >>>> If you want to know how it can be done properly for ambulatory care (i.e. >>>> GP and >>>> >> specialists) I suggest you browse www.cchit.org. They have it sorted for >> >>>> the US and it is pretty impressive how they plan to move forward I reckon. >>>> >>>> Pity GP systems is not a focus for NEHTA so this could be replicated here. >>>> Imagine if >>>> >> there was a decent standard for functionality and interoperability >>>> that Australian providers had to meet. They might not be all that >>>> supportive of such a >>>> >> sensible move I fear as it might cost a few $$ and so on. >>> http://www.cchit.org/physicians/overview.htm >>> >>> tells us: >>> >>> "CCHIT is the recognized certification authority in the United States for >>> EHR products - >>> >> an independent, private-sector organization that sets the Gold >>> Standard for EHRs." >>> >>> I hope that I never hear that overworked expression 'gold standard' used >>> again, because >>> >> its orginal meaning is no longer known by most people. >>> Their PDF: "Physician's Guide: CCHIT Certification for Ambulatory >>> Electronic Health >>> >> Records 2006" >>> tells us: >>> >>> "CCHIT was founded by the American Health >>> Information Management Association, >>> the Healthcare Information and Management >>> Systems Society and the National Alliance >>> for Health Information Technology. >>> The U.S. Department of Health and Human >>> Services (HHS) awarded CCHIT a three-year >>> contract to develop and test certification >>> criteria and manage an inspection process >>> for certifying EHRs. At the end of the >>> contract, CCHIT will transition to a selfsustaining >>> certification agency." >>> >>> So they have three years of federal government money to kick start the >>> process, then it >>> >> has to become self-funding. David, do you know when their three >>> years of government funding will be up? >>> >>> "CCHIT works in collaboration with the >>> American Health Information Community, >>> the Department of Commerce's National >>> Institute of Standard and Technology, and >>> with several other organizations awarded >>> HHS contracts to harmonize standards, >>> develop prototypes for a national health >>> information network architecture, and assess >>> privacy and security laws and practices. >>> The work of CCHIT has been endorsed by a >>> number of physician professional organizations, >>> including: >>> - The American Academy of Family Physicians" >>> >>> OK, so their equivalent of the RACGP is supporting it. Good. >>> >>> Let's also go for three years of government funding for an organisation >>> indepenedent of >>> >> government, run by the profession and software industry jointly. >>> Maybe we can save some time and money by using or adapting some of the >>> standards that >>> >> CCHIT has developed for GP computer systems in the US, keeping in mind >> >>> the very different way that medical practice is organised and funded there. >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > __________ NOD32 2078 (20070223) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
