I'm a member of HL7, but I believe the requirement to pay for the standards is not the best approach. Once the standards are complete, they should be entirely free. It is reasonable to charge for the participation and influence in the process to create the standard. It isn't the membership fee that I object too, but the fact that the standards can't be obtained without paying.
Dave At 05:18 PM 8/19/2003 -0700, Christopher Feahr wrote: >Dr. Bish, >I'm not sure that I understand your comment about HL7 being an >"exclusive club"... although you seem to be alluding to the cost of >membership. I have only dealt with individual membership dues which run >about $500/yr. While it's true that other classes of membership are more >costly, I believe this reflects the present operational costs of an ANSI >accredited standards committee. X12 costs are similar. > >I agree that from the provider perspective, the costs to participate in >HL7 are often seen as prohibitive... particularly when time, travel, and >lodging costs are considered for meeting attendance. The same is true >of X12N and UN/CEFACT, which explains the dearth of provider input to >these organizations. It also helps to explain why the US govt. is >presently attempting to force big-payer-inspired EDI standards onto our >entire healthcare community, when the X12 EDI model is clearly of no >value to >300,000 provider organizations. However, there were no >provider-centric standards that the government could have adopted in >lieu of X12's... because there are no provider-centric SDOs, or even >Insurance-centric SDOs with significant provider input. HL7 is >"provider-centric" in theory, but all SDOs end up being "dues-paying >member"-centric in actual operation... something that can be changed. >simply by having provider associations participate as members. > >Providers need an SDO that is focused on the functional requirements of >*healthcare* delivery in all 30 or so major specialty domains and care >settings. From SDO-maintained functional models, vendors should be able >to design provider systems with reasonable levels of interoperability... >and any sort of EHR system that a user may require. > >This approach to standards development is not supported by the >part-time, all-volunteer, big-enterprise-member SDO model used by HL7. >Providers require a standards organization with a predictable revenue >stream and reliable, full-time human resources. But... that means >provider associations and specialty societies must step forward... as >HL7 members... and insist on a mechanism for getting their members' >needs baked into our global standards. HL7 will always adapt to the >needs of its members, as it has for 15 years. > >NCVHS, DHHS, CMS, and the agencies behind the Consolidated Health >Informatics initiative (DOD, Veterans Adm, Indian Health, Homeland >Security, etc.)... are unanimous in selecting HL7 are the lead SDO for >health care in the US. The federal govt. is particularly interested in >the EHR work and is expecting HL7 to take the lead there, as well. >There has never been a better opportunity or a more obvious need for >massive provider input than around these "EHR" issues. > >It's time providers got themselves onto the Big SDO Radar Screen. At >this time, HL7 appears to be our best entry point for providers in the >US and abroad. > >Best regards, >-Chris > >Christopher J. Feahr, O.D. >Optiserv Consulting (Vision Industry) >Office: (707) 579-4984 >Cell: (707) 529-2268 >http://Optiserv.com >http://VisionDataStandard.org >----- Original Message ----- >From: "USM Bish" <bish at hathway.com> >To: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> >Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:30 PM >Subject: Re: Open Source EHR at the Americal Academy of Family >Physicians ... > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:29:37PM -0700, Christopher Feahr wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I would like to see all EHR-related standards > > > work... at least in the US... coordinated under the umbrella > > > of HL7. At the moment, the CCR project does not appear to be > > > headed toward HL7. > > > > I really don't know if HL7 would be the way things would go > > unless they remove the image that they belong to an > > exclusive club. The response I received from HL-7 (India) is > > placed below for your perusal. > > > > Dr USM Bish > > > > ----------------------<snip>---------------------------- > > > > > > You could receive the same from HL7 Inida. This is provided > > > along with HL7 India membership. ( membership fee is Rs > > > 35,000) > > > > > > regards > > > > > > Saji > > > > > > > bish at hathway.com wrote: > > > > On 2003-04-10 at 03:14:04 > > > > > > > > I am interested in obtaining the full HL-7 specs valid as on > > > > date. It is requested, that I may kindly be advised from > > > > where I could obtain the same. > > > > > > > > USM Bish > > ----------------------</snip>---------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > >- >If you have any questions about using this list, >please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
