(I did not see this posted to openEHR... trying again. please pardon if duplicate)
I am addressing the important issues raised on the openEHR listserve around HL7 membership/participation costs, ability to contribute/comment on standards vs. "vote" on them, license to examine/review vs. "implement" standards, etc. These issues directly impact the ability of the provider and small PMS vendors to participate. In my opinion, the basic funding, project-management, technical review, user-vetting, harmonization, and final product distribution processes... are in need of review in all health-related SDOs... not just HL7. It is also a problem that there is so much duplicated and occasionally conflicting effort... particularly under the banner of "EHR". AT THE END OF THE DAY, HOWEVER... ... there remains a boatload of hard, technical work that must be accomplished at the SDO level... on behalf of the global community of provider organizations, over 80% of whom are "small" by SBA guidelines. This SDO effort requires vision, leadership, project management, and a reliable funding mechanism... just like any other worthwhile enterprise. Membership dues and license fees are two possible sources of SDO revenue, but there are others. The present funding/labor model, however, is lopsided and does seem to discourage input from small-to-medium-sized organizations. I am confident that it can be fixed, because accredited standards bodies have an *obligation* to listen to their constituents... both individually and as a community... and to adapt their processes, policies, and procedures to meet the needs of their constituent-communities. If the needs of a half-million smaller providers can somehow be brought to a single SDO table, I am confident they will be considered fairly... because ANSI accreditation requires that all important agreements be reached by strong and provable consensus among *represented* stakeholders. NEXT STEPS FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS: Therefore, I suggest that the most important Next Step for the provider community and other under-represented health information users, is to GET YOURSELVES REPRESENTED within ONE accredited standards body. Given the huge, multi-pronged US govt. push to position HL7 as the lead SDO for the US Healthcare Industry (CMS, DHHS, e- Gov/CHI, NCVHS recommendations, etc.), I would suggest that the global provider community consider driving a stake in the ground, declaring HL7 to be "home base" for now... at least for articulating and registering the core requirements and core process models for care delivery... in all major specialty domains and care settings. NOTE: I feel the need to point out that UN/CEFACT (specifically, TBG-10) feels to me like the more politically "right" organization for something as important to mankind and as blind to geopolitical boundaries as Healthcare. But... convergence of this work with the UN's "International Trade and Business Process Modeling Group" can always be accomplished at a later date, if that is the wish of the global healthcare industry. For the moment, it makes more sense to "follow the money" and the larger vested interests to the most recognized and FUNCTIONAL standards table... for providers to essentially bring their requirements to the table that large, vested interests have already created and partially funded. Remember... the HL7 table is "ANSI accredited". No matter how unpalatable or expensive provider business requirements may be, HL7 is bound by rules of accreditation to listen and respond. The consensus process requires that all sustained, reasonable objection to important (i.e., balloted) items... by any duly represented stakeholder... be resolved. How to make "the money part" work in the SDO layer remains open for discussion. But all that is needed to make an accredited SDO "work" for the healthcare industry is to BRING PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS TO THE TABLE. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20030821/21395e04/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Christopher Feahr.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 1417 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20030821/21395e04/attachment.vcf>
