Christopher Feahr wrote: >Thomas, >Thank you for the detailed comments. You mentioned WHO as a possible >world health information authority, but have they done anything like >this? > actually I have to admit I was being a bit facetious suggesting WHO, but then again, not sure how good the US-UN relationship is at the moment. However, I think your comments below might be right. However, there could be one serious problem. If an authority which operates more like the WTO than a health manager is controlled EHR and other systems in the future, it would be easy to imagine serious conflicts of interest (and they would be resolved in the favour of big business not health consumers). But I think we need to just build a technological instance of a solution just regionally before getting too bogged down in the worries of global management of the system as a whole.
- thomas > >While UN/CEFACT is focused on messaging standards to support >"international trade", the problems from the IT point of view would seem >to be similar to those of information sharing in healthcare. Both >"international trade" and "global healthcare" are information sharing >problems, requiring essentially the same standards components. In fact, >UN/CEFACT TBG-10 is focused on modeling of healthcare business >processes... something that would seem to overlap considerably with the >EHR work. > >The need for healthcare businesses to engage in actual trade with device >and drug manufacturers, the banking industry, etc would also seem to >point to UN/CEFACT as the central authority for creating the rules of >choreography for all the different EHR systems. That way, the rules >could be harmonized with the 15 or 16 other TBG groups for other >industries. > > ....... - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
