At 9:57 am +1100 14/3/07, Tim Churches wrote:
Greg Twyford wrote:
Ian Cheong wrote:
From what I can see, the UZI register
http://www.uziregister.nl/english/ (high resolution version of the
video is via the links towards the bottom of the page) is their
equivalent of our HESA.
No. They use commodity X.509 technologies for their PKI (allows lots of
choice/competition between vendors, and allows use of open source). Teh
UZI is equivalent to a PKI wrapped around a unique Health Provider
Identifier as is supposedly to be implemented by NEHTA. It is not like
HESA because a) it iincludes all health providers and b) it is used for
authentication and access control, not just encryption and signing.
I understood HESA used x.509 certificates.
>> Remember that Australia substantially wrote
the ISO healthcare PKI standard and was a global leader in
implementation through HIC/HESA.
The Dutch have gone quite a way beyond that, it would seem.
I didn't get that impression.
>> The video is similar to what MediConnect/HealthConnect probably had -
I have seen the MediConnect video. I presume a similar PR tool was
used in HealthConnect as part of the trial recruitment/enrolment
marketing.
Except that the Dutch are actually implementing this, instead of
throwing it all in the Too Hard Basket, as has been done with
HealthConnect and MediConnect.
It was implemented in Australia. Only costs and teething problem made
them end up in the too hard basket. I'll believe the Dutch have done
better when I haev seen the published results of the implementation,
not the glossy marketing video.
To me we are promoting the Not Invented Here Syndrome.
No, it is promoting Look They're Getting On With It Elsewhere, Unlike Us.
I agree with Greg. The Netherlands aren't plagued by Federalism as we
are, but otherwise they are a country of the same order of magnitude
population with a not entirely dissimilar mixed public- and
private-sector health care system, with similar national health
insurance plus private insurance and so on. If they can do it, and the
Danes, then why can't we?
Many European countries were many years ahead of us in penetration of
GP computing, but apparently due to substantial government funding of
this, further innovation did not occur beyond a base level of
functionality.
Australia is still a global leader in health informatics but the USA
will probably trample us with their well resourced effort to implement
the EHR thing.
Ah, jingoism, enjoy it while it lasts.
We have a great track record of becoming 'world's best', then running
away and hiding. Take the Ozzie film industry of the late 70s and early
80s. Gone.
How about the space industry? We were set to be a major player in the
late 50s and early 60s, but Menzies thought that such stuff was better
left to the Brits. Likewise computers.
The usual reason is a government without commitment to the public good
or imagination.
Yup. Sigh.
Tim C
Innovation is not something governments are much good at. Something
to do with risk-averse political mechanisms and bureaucracies.
Government is better to do legislation, standards, incentives, and
get out of the road of innovative corporates.
Ian.
--
Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec)
Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(for urgent matters, please send a copy to my practice email as well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
PRIVACY NOTE
I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists.
Please ask my permission first if you wish to forward private email
to other parties.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
