> In summary - we need political concern and leadership to drive change > and get it happening. That will only happen if all the groups you > mention start pushing
Agree. I've started pushing - met local federal member (Greg Hunt) yesterday, and I am putting together a hard copy "brief" which he is very keen to present to Tony Abbott et al. My understanding of the syntax which needs to be used to effect change is this: 1) The proposed change needs to have a plain and clear vote-catching message. My proposal is to help the rural doctor shortage/crisis (= big rural vote winner) by enhancing a GPassist-type scheme: http://www.gpat.com.au 2) The proposal can be self-funding or even save money (the GPassist scheme receives DoHA funding, but ends up saving $1.3m pa by reducing the number of after hour doctor/locum service home visits). 3) The implementation of the above easy-to-understand vote-catching money-saving scheme requires a, b, c difficult to understand technicalities, the details of which we don't really need to worry the voters about because it is all too technical and meaningless for the voters to understand. BUT, it's in here that there is the need for a hospital EHR so that the scheme can be fully implemented ... A phase 1 of the scheme can be implemented initially (like Tassie's GPassist), but a much better phase 2 can come on-board later once there is a hospital EHR - this now produces the driver for funding the (accredited) software development. Sorry if the above is all a bit obtuse, but I can't see any easy-to-understand vote-catching money-saving messages in going to the pollies with the message "we need accreditation of medical software". I'll post a draft of my submission in due course - it will help to get feed-back and "approval" from medical and medical IT groups. John Mac _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
