Andrew, I hope that the following is useful, We are mainly focused on making e-health dependable and safe which it is currently not. Ensuring standards are implemented at key points i.e. message acknowledgements; use of correct message types etc will allow competing providers to interconnect. Use of proprietary interfaces, shoehorning messages into the incorrect formats etc will not.
I guess it needs to be re-emphasized that those environments where parties such as HealthLink, medical Objects and similar organisations operate there is connectivity. Where they do not exist, there is none. Expecting management of integration to occur by itself or at no cost is wishful thinking... And look where that gets us. I would expect there to be some agreed rules on anti-competitiveness etc worked into the code of practice or if necessary imposed but first things first, reliability and safety must be viewed as a priority. By way of providing a further insight into the world in which we operate; (speaking here for HealthLink although I'd expect our competitors to be somewhat similar) typically we don't charge message volume based charges, we charge on a per site or per FTE basis, economy of scale is key, we are effectively selling a support service with software tools bundled in, high quality service is of paramount importance. HealthLink has 50 staff of whom 1/3 are front line support and 1/3rd are developers, the rest are involved in new service development, network support, etc, etc. In terms of a competitive environment, I think that with a stricter standards regime in place it could work well, Medical Objects, E-Clinic and HealthLink are all working on interconnection/shared directories/PKI issues and we have started to join Argus to that discussion, others would be welcome too, (but speaking for HealthLink, strict adherence to use of standards and a commitment to quality will be key to the success or failure of any collaborative approaches). Quality Issues need to come to the fore if we are to make any real progress. Kind regards, Tom Bowden Tom Bowden <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chief Executive Tel: +64 9 638 0670 Mobile: +64 21 874 154 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Web: www.healthlink.net <http://www.healthlink.net/> <http://www.healthlink.net/> Connecting The Health Sector -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Patterson Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:55 p.m. To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Management of Messaging > Our paper, and the accompanying draft code of practice (both of which > are receiving support from a range of parties including other > messaging system providers) aim to galvanise support for full adoption > of Tom, Can you set out the competitive framework implications (ACCC, Trade Practices etc) of healthlink's vision for Australian e-health? i.e where are the competitive pressures in your a system (price? quality of support?) and where would new messaging players enter the system (pitching to PMS vendors? GP's? Path labs?). Could I implement a fabulous HL7 interface, license it to a PMS vendor at a competitive price, and send messages through the Healthlink server? Even though everyone will be using HL7 in common, to what extent do you see messaging providers using common infrastructure (shared PKI address books etc). I'm not trying to have a go at Healthlink's right to earn a dollar - but a Code of Practice such as the one you are proposing may have competition implications and I would be interested in your plans on how to make sure the system does not degenerate into an anti-competitive playing field. Andrew _______________________________________________ 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
