Re: [openhealth] Re: What do you keep explaining about Health IT
o update your > database/ language occasionally; in my job, accessing old data is more > important > than riding the cutting edge. Don't forget it's not just a court case and > a > truckload of money off to your local litigation leech; it's potentially > lives > lost, and an doctor respecialising in tractor driving. And lawsuits aren't > rare > events: someone once told me the average American doctor spends more time > in > court than the average American criminal... > If you can find me that study I would be impressed... I am a big fan of lifelong records. I have argued for the seven generation test. Now some peope call it the "Trotter Test" contributing to my already big fat head. > > > Finally, local to you the USA has a huge problem with fragmentation due to > the > private health care system, and I'm willing to bet not even the President > of the > US will be able to shout down all the private interests making money out of > your > ill- health. The billing problems you mention are only the start; given > that > healthcare is about 18% of GDP, don't bet on being able to inject any > common > sense. There are too many vested interests making money on it staying just > the > way it is, and unless greed starts to be seen as a negative attribute, the > status quo is bound to continue. > > Ian > > > > > > From: fred trotter > To: hardhats ; openhealth > > Sent: Fri, 3 September, 2010 2:13:03 PM > Subject: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Re: What do you keep explaining about > Health IT > > > I really appreciate the wonderful questions and answers that I have gotten > on this question so far. > > However, many of them have been focused on Doctors not understanding > fundamental IT notions. > > This makes sense. Our community is often trying to convince various groups > of doctors to make good leadership decisions, and focusing on the problems > with that process makes it easier to answer "what do doctors not get". > > But I had two parts to my question. The other part was "What do > (non-health) > IT people not get about Health IT. > > To get us started I will start with the most shocking Health IT reality > that > I learned about when I first started in this community: > > The degree to which medical billing impacts the health IT process. I was > shocked by the need for clearinghouses, that X12 was the "new" standard > (dates me, I know) rather than a sensible choice like XML. I was shocked to > see the arms race between insurance companies reasons for not paying and > doctors justifying expenses... Then the degree to which that process locked > us into billing ontologies that prevent more reasonable ontologies from > flourishing. > > For those of us on the IT/Programming side, what was a > painful/dramatic/profound lesson that you needed to learn about the way > health IT operates? > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Re: What do you keep explaining about Health IT
I really appreciate the wonderful questions and answers that I have gotten on this question so far. However, many of them have been focused on Doctors not understanding fundamental IT notions. This makes sense. Our community is often trying to convince various groups of doctors to make good leadership decisions, and focusing on the problems with that process makes it easier to answer "what do doctors not get". But I had two parts to my question. The other part was "What do (non-health) IT people not get about Health IT. To get us started I will start with the most shocking Health IT reality that I learned about when I first started in this community: The degree to which medical billing impacts the health IT process. I was shocked by the need for clearinghouses, that X12 was the "new" standard (dates me, I know) rather than a sensible choice like XML. I was shocked to see the arms race between insurance companies reasons for not paying and doctors justifying expenses... Then the degree to which that process locked us into billing ontologies that prevent more reasonable ontologies from flourishing. For those of us on the IT/Programming side, what was a painful/dramatic/profound lesson that you needed to learn about the way health IT operates? -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] What do you keep explaining about Health IT
Excellent high level comments. Rick calls the notion of constant change the fluxus quo That is definitely a good point. Any other notions? Specific issues that require deep understandings is what I am after. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:46 PM, David Whitten wrote: > > One thing that I find I have to repeat is an idea that Rick Marshall originally expressed: > > Health IT has to be constantly changing and being refined, because the field of Medicine is constantly changing and being refined. > > It is a very enchanting thought that you can create a software system for Health IT and stamp it "perfect" and then never have to re-visit that system again. It is very enchanting and wrong. Best Practices in Medicine constantly are being re-evaluated, and any computer system that supports medical practice and healthcare must be re-evaluated regularly as well. > > David > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:31 AM, fred trotter wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> One of the experiences that I have had, time and time again is that when I talk to doctors about Health IT, they have some basic Information Technology gaps in their education. They simply do not understand some of the fundamentals of Information Technology and have trouble even understanding what I am talking about when I talk about things like "structured data". >> >> Alternatively, "normal" IT people do not get some of the fundamental complexities of the healthcare delivery process that prevents them from understanding certain Health IT concepts. >> >> The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to doctors include "Why you need to include prescription data in a normalized way in the patient chart, rather than just writing in plaintext in a note" >> >> The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to IT people include "Why billing data cannot be relied upon for clinically accurate data mining" >> >> In your experience, what other things do you as Health IT people have to consistently explain to doctors and/or IT people about Health IT. I am looking for the kinds of things that you have explained at least three or four times. Perhaps you have explained them enough times that you have an impatient lecture that you have to give on the topic? >> >> Another way to ask the question is "If there were a FAQ for Health IT, what should go on it?" >> >> Thanks, >> -FT >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> >> -- >> http://groups.google.com/group/Hardhats >> To unsubscribe, send email to >> hardhats+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Hardhats > To unsubscribe, send email to > hardhats+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] What do you keep explaining about Health IT
Philippe, Excellent exposition. Precisely the kind of high-level issue that I am looking for! Others? -FT On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Philippe Ameline wrote: > Hi Fred, > > This is a topic I have been trying to address for years. > > In France, practitioners are mainly using the kind of software whose > main selling argument is to imitate paper. Since I have always been > developing information systems based on highly structured information, I > have always been looking for evidence in favor of "advanced health IT > against office dedicated systems". > > And I reached a dead end! > > The first reason for this is that when I tried to convince medical > doctors that it is a nonsense for them to only use Electronic Document > Management systems when they should use group-ware and project > management systems (I mean, some way to work as a team around patients), > they clearly don't get the point. The usual answer is that MD have > always communicated through reports and cannot even imagine working > another way. > > The second reason is that highly structured information mainly allows > for knowledge management (KM). When I graduated, it was called > Artificial Intelligence, but KM is a better term. And, as a guy that > managed to have practitioners use a system that hosts a bunch of > "knowledge sources" (the kind of smart agents that are controlled by a > blackboard), I can tell you something highly disturbing : any medical > doctor will restrain the information she stores to the data that her > brain can easily process (optimizing the signal/noise ratio). It means > that this "complex information that smart agents could process for her > benefit" is simply not there! (with the exception of Risk Management, > because it is considered "complex enough" for the MD to be willing to > feeding agents with the data they need). > > The solution to this is rather straightforward: just switch to > continuity of care, as the place where practitioners work as a team and > share a lot of information they are not used to processing with their > brain (say, they cannot restrain the information that get stored and > will suffer from a low signal/noise ratio). But when you just reach this > point, there is high chance that you realize that your customer will > probably never be a practitioner ;-) > > This is the dead end... the moment when you realize that this box is too > small and that, unless you are able to provide the proper tools for a > paradigm shift, there is no use trying to sell advanced systems in a > context where they will never really work. > > Philippe Ameline > > Le 30/08/2010 18:31, fred trotter a écrit : > > > > Hi, > > > > One of the experiences that I have had, time and time again is that when > I > > talk to doctors about Health IT, they have some basic Information > > Technology > > gaps in their education. They simply do not understand some of the > > fundamentals of Information Technology and have trouble even > understanding > > what I am talking about when I talk about things like "structured data". > > > > Alternatively, "normal" IT people do not get some of the fundamental > > complexities of the healthcare delivery process that prevents them from > > understanding certain Health IT concepts. > > > > The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to doctors include > > "Why you need to include prescription data in a normalized way in the > > patient chart, rather than just writing in plaintext in a note" > > > > The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to IT people > include > > "Why billing data cannot be relied upon for clinically accurate data > > mining" > > > > In your experience, what other things do you as Health IT people have to > > consistently explain to doctors and/or IT people about Health IT. I am > > looking for the kinds of things that you have explained at least three or > > four times. Perhaps you have explained them enough times that you have an > > impatient lecture that you have to give on the topic? > > > > Another way to ask the question is "If there were a FAQ for Health IT, > > what > > should go on it?" > > > > Thanks, > > -FT > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] What do you keep explaining about Health IT
Jel, I probably should not have suggested a "FAQ" what I am looking for is much more like what Philippe put forward. High level concepts that are very difficult to grasp but are vitally important. The problem with a FAQ or wiki model is that really, these topics are far too deep for that. To fully explain the issue that Philippe has put forward would require hundreds of "questions" and answers. Rather than thinking of this as a FAQ (my fault for starting down that path) perhaps we should think about it as the "High Level Concept Barriers to understanding Health IT". -FT On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Jel Coward wrote: > I think the examples you cite are typical. > > It would be great to have such an FAQ...perhaps in wiki > style/functionality that we could all contribute to. > > Anyone care to set that up? > > Cheers > > Jel Coward > Sent from a super-snazzy open-source Android phone. Making the iPhone look > so '20th century' :-) > > On Aug 30, 2010 9:31 AM, "fred trotter" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > One of the experiences that I have had, time and time again is that when > I > > talk to doctors about Health IT, they have some basic Information > Technology > > gaps in their education. They simply do not understand some of the > > fundamentals of Information Technology and have trouble even > understanding > > what I am talking about when I talk about things like "structured data". > > > > Alternatively, "normal" IT people do not get some of the fundamental > > complexities of the healthcare delivery process that prevents them from > > understanding certain Health IT concepts. > > > > The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to doctors include > > "Why you need to include prescription data in a normalized way in the > > patient chart, rather than just writing in plaintext in a note" > > > > The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to IT people > include > > "Why billing data cannot be relied upon for clinically accurate data > mining" > > > > In your experience, what other things do you as Health IT people have to > > consistently explain to doctors and/or IT people about Health IT. I am > > looking for the kinds of things that you have explained at least three or > > four times. Perhaps you have explained them enough times that you have an > > impatient lecture that you have to give on the topic? > > > > Another way to ask the question is "If there were a FAQ for Health IT, > what > > should go on it?" > > > > Thanks, > > -FT > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] What do you keep explaining about Health IT
Hi, One of the experiences that I have had, time and time again is that when I talk to doctors about Health IT, they have some basic Information Technology gaps in their education. They simply do not understand some of the fundamentals of Information Technology and have trouble even understanding what I am talking about when I talk about things like "structured data". Alternatively, "normal" IT people do not get some of the fundamental complexities of the healthcare delivery process that prevents them from understanding certain Health IT concepts. The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to doctors include "Why you need to include prescription data in a normalized way in the patient chart, rather than just writing in plaintext in a note" The kind of thing I find myself repeatedly explaining to IT people include "Why billing data cannot be relied upon for clinically accurate data mining" In your experience, what other things do you as Health IT people have to consistently explain to doctors and/or IT people about Health IT. I am looking for the kinds of things that you have explained at least three or four times. Perhaps you have explained them enough times that you have an impatient lecture that you have to give on the topic? Another way to ask the question is "If there were a FAQ for Health IT, what should go on it?" Thanks, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] anyone using Twitter/Status for ODLs
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3482315/tweet-meta-syntax-for-odls -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Status of Open Source in healthcare
If your project is doing something amazing, please get in contact with me so that I can promote it in my talk at OSCON! http://www.fredtrotter.com/2010/05/22/speaking-at-oscon/ I also want to note that I will be pushing my own Open Source Healthcare conference pretty hard: http://www.oshealthcon.com You can still get cheap tickets... signup now -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Please tag prior art with #priorart Ill start..
Hi, This pisses me off so much. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/03/1432250/Microsofts-Health-y-Patent-Appetite I have have had conversations about the merger of the video game industry and the health data collection industry so many times. These ideas are so obvious. Anyone with half a brain can see them coming. I am going to start brain dumping everything I can think of to this mailing list as a source for prior art. I will include the hashtag #priorart in the mail posts for better searching. Please consider doing the same. The supreme court failed to protect us from these kind of obvious patents with the recent decision, so we really have no choice at all here. Health data from Position aware clothing Using smart fibers that send electrical signals regarding their length, and/or shape, I can create clothing, like tshirts that allow for the constant monitoring of body position. You could use the system to monitor your own posture, or you could use the system to monitor how long a patient had been in a position (i.e. to prevent bed sores etc) or you could use it to find a position that was free from pain. The system could be hooked up to the internet, or to a local computer or phone or it could make sounds. All of these interfaces could allow people to program the clothing to do different things, or to receive specific feedback about how to position oneself. This feedback could be used with real-time data to enhance workouts. There are a thousand different network configurations that this could use easily. Once you have the data from even a few strands of fabric, you could use intelligent systems to "guess" other information like whether the clothing was actually being worn. These guesses could be easily determined using common AI techniques and no specific configuration which a human could figure out would be particularly innovative. Merely filming people in the clothing and matching it to the data from the fabric would be enough to make extremely accurate guesses about all kinds of data. With only the knowledge of protocols like bluetooth, smart fabrics that are available now, and really small embedded systems, I can easily code all of what I am describing here right now. I am not convinced that this is a good idea... only one that some moron would think to patent it. Hell it probably already has been patented. If I could read the patent database without being accused of willful violation, I would go check... -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] The National Strategy for Trusted Identities
Hi, Recently the United States Government released its The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/25/national-strategy-trusted-identities-cyberspace This policy will likely provide the overarching identity policy and direction for the coming National Health Information Network. This strategy is an improvement over previous identity efforts by the US government, which have been stacked in favor of commercial-proprietary-top-down CA systems. i.e. ICAM http://www.idmanagement.gov/drilldown.cfm?action=icam ICAM essentially assumes that Identity Providers have a profit model, and as a result, sometimes make requirements that would be difficult for Open Source identity providers like the pgp-gpg network or CACert.org to work with. If possible I want them to avoid making the same mistake again. This proposal is in draft status, and you can read the current version here: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf To comment on the proposal, please visit http://nstic.ideascale.com/ I have already posted a general defense of the peer-to-peer bottom up and open source model shared by CACert.org and the pgp-gpg community. You can find that here: http://bit.ly/bDEiBi Please vote on my idea and I would love to have some comments from this community. Especially if you live in the United States or have informed opinions about US policy. Thank you. -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Fwd: Oho Linux Fest is also planning an Open Source Medical Track
I am very happy to announce that there is a yet-another-fine open source healthcare track at another major conference this year!! Ohio Linux Fest 2010 will have a healthcare track. Please see the email from Philip Reiche below. You can send your conference proposals to him. This talk is very close to OSHealthCOn (http://oshealthcon.com) time-wise but if you live near Ohio it will probably be easier to make and I will try not to be too bitter. This seems to be a growing trend and we should all be very happy about this. Hopefully Ignacio will post something about on the venerable LinuxMedNews.com -FT -- Forwarded message -- From: Philip Reiche Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM Subject: Oho Linux Fest is also planning an Open Source Medical Track To: fred.trot...@gmail.com Fred, I'm Phil Reiche, speaker co-chair for the 2010 Ohio Linux Fest. I just stumbled across your website researching OpenVistA and Astronaut , and was wondering if you would be interested in giving a talk at our con, or could suggest someone who might be interested. We are meeting in Columbus Ohio, Sept 10 and 11, and are just putting together our program. Thanks, Phil Reiche -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Healthcare track at OSCON
I have already put in two proposals... I hope that everyone will put in something. Take a look at the youtube videos of former OSCON tracks. This is an in depth crowd, and they want the cool tech... There are alot of projects doing amazing things that I and other "insiders" like Brian know about. This is your chance to get some attention... -FT On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > Just to echo Fred's post - this is the first time OSCON, which has been > going for over 10 years, has had an industry-specific track. Recently I > and others have been encouraging them in this direction, as the number of > quality open source health IT projects is reaching a critical mass and > some really good stories are waiting to be told. My ulterior motive is to > get the geeks to stop building chat clients and farming games on Facebook > and start applying their thinking and coding skills to healthcare, where > we could use them. The paucity of open source at HIMSS was kinda shocking > - we gotta change that, and getting other geeks at OSCON to get into > health IT would be a big step. Who's in? > > Brian > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, fred trotter wrote: >> http://www.oscon.com/oscon2010/public/cfp/108 >> >> This -might- be even more important than the conference that I am >> putting on... which not enough of you have signed up for... >> >> http://www.oshealthcon.com >> >> -FT >> >> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Healthcare track at OSCON
http://www.oscon.com/oscon2010/public/cfp/108 This -might- be even more important than the conference that I am putting on... which not enough of you have signed up for... http://www.oshealthcon.com -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] only two more $50 tickets
would prefer these to go to FOSS community members. http://www.oshealthcon.com/ -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Biosurveillance software
http://www.trisano.org/ and just released at HIMSS http://www.cdc.gov/BioSense/ I think Trisano has legs... HTH, -FT On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Tim C wrote: > Have a look at NetEpi Collection at http://code.google.com/p/netepi/ - > production-ready, with large scale deployments, and under active, funded > development. And runs on Linux. If you need help getting it installed, just > email us on the mailing list. > > Tim C > > On 10 March 2010 08:54, David Chan wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry for cross posting: > > > > Hi there, my name is Hector, im from Argentina, I want know if anyone > > can send me a little list of apps of Public Health and Biosurveillance > > e.g. epi-info, I need an alternative to this, to use in gnu/linux > > "mandriva" or another SO likes *nix. > > Let me know, thanks in advance. > > > > -- > > Hector R Lopez > > mail: beat006[at]gmail[dot]com > > Corrientes-Argentina CP:3400 > > Movil: 03783 15534876 > > David H Chan, MD, CCFP, MSc, FCFP > > Associate Professor > > Department of Family Medicine > > McMaster University > > > > __ > > Get the name you've always wanted @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com! Go to > > http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/ > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: If you are at HIMSS
Still need booth numbers for Medsphere and DSS... Is ClearHealth or Mirth renting space? I wish I could just search and publish but the e-version of the exhibitor guide blows. -FT On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, fred trotter wrote: > And you would like for me to promote that fact on my blog or twitter > account, please drop me a link. > > If you are speaking, or have a booth or anything like that and you are an > open source organization or person.. I want to get you more attention... > > I am not able to make it this year, but that does not mean that I cannot > help promote the light at the annual darkness convention. > > -FT > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] If you are at HIMSS
And you would like for me to promote that fact on my blog or twitter account, please drop me a link. If you are speaking, or have a booth or anything like that and you are an open source organization or person.. I want to get you more attention... I am not able to make it this year, but that does not mean that I cannot help promote the light at the annual darkness convention. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] How are we doing on security?
http://www.fredtrotter.com/2010/02/16/security-reviews-in-open-source-health-software/ -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] regarding open source healthcare project governance
Hi, Recently i2b2 asked me to write about project governance as it applies to healthcare projects. How should an open source healthcare project be run? I would love comments from the Hardhats and OpenHealth communities on my ideas, please find them here: http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/11/17/on-project-governance/ -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Open Source HIT and data.gov
Hi, More and more, I get interview requests asking for me to give the open source perspective to healthcare issues. Sometimes, the questions are excellent, showing pretty deep insights into the problems (other times the reporter has no clue what our movement is about) When a reporter asks me good questions, I like to reward them by giving them not only me own insights and opinions but also a sampling of what the community at large thinks. The better the question, the less likely I am to be certain of the answer. Recently, a reporter wanted my take on the information available from data.gov from the perspective of the FOSS health IT community. She asked the following specific questions that I wanted to pass on to the community at large. Feel free to reply to me privately if you have opinions you would prefer not to be recorded publicly. 1. What is your view of the healthcare related data sets available on the www.data.gov Web site? How useful are they? Who are the likely users? Are there enough? Which ones do you find most promising? 2. What additional healthcare related data sets would you like to see available on www.data.gov? 3. How significant do you think www.data.gov is as an open source of health information? How would you like to see it evolve? 4. Do you foresee any barriers to more healthcare data being shared via www.data.gov? -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] mostly final FOSSHealth schedule
In yet another fine demonstration of the amateurism of me your conference host, I am putting the final schedule up for FOSSHealth only 5 days before the conference. You can take a look here: http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com While I must admit that I could have been much better organized for this conference, I am very proud of the quality of the speakers who are coming. These speakers represent the whos-who of the FOSS healthcare community. Heck even the attendees are rock stars! It is not to late to register and you can still use the code 'open' for $100 off the price of your ticket. If you are out-of-work, contact me for scholarship information and there is already a student rate. Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Open World Forum 2009, Paris, 1-2 October 2009
Let me know when this is certain to happen and I will add it to the events page on LibertyHSF.org -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Re: FOSS Health logistics
We also have tony mccormick and xavier talking about OpenEMR. Is Hoyt a OpenEMR user? It looks like we will probably have slots for him to speak no matter what but I want to keep it to FOSS in healthcare, not IT in healthcare. HIMSS/AMIA is for that Generally, I am planning on having 50 minute sessions. 30 minutes of talking and 20 minutes of discussion. So your sessions would be Tony McCormick Xavier You Not sure what Hoyt will talk about. Dr Brody will be talking about CCHIT and FOSS specifically. Your timeslots will not be sequential either , Dr. Brody specifically requested that he speak on Friday I will try to bunch everyone else on Saturday though, if that is what you want? Is that what you want? -FT On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:32 PM, sickleofzeus wrote: > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, fred trotter wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > So we have just gotten 95% confirmation that the facilities > for > > FOSSHealth 09 (which happens at the end of the month) will be provided by > > HAL-PC. http://www.hal-pc.org/ > > HAL-PC is the largest PC users group in the world. We will have space for > > two tracks as well as a break room and (usually) a computer lab. The > HAL-PC > > office is right by the galleria mall. > > > > If you are a confirmed speaker this year, please reply to this email. I > am > > finalizing the speaking order and I do not want to forget anyone. > > If you have constraints like you have to speak on a particular day, then > > please include it here. Give us a one paragraph summary of your talks > (great > > advertising!!) > > Generally, you should expect to talk for 50 minutes. However, your talk > > length should be no more than 30 minutes. You should leave 20 minutes for > > discussion and questions. > > If this is not enough time, then let me know, I will see about getting > you > > an extra session. This is the first time when FOSS has been the focus of > the > > entire conference and that gives us some flexibility. > > Please expect lots of chaos this year. It is our first year and we are > just > > learning the conference ropes. > > > > If you are a sponsor, I am assuming that you will have at least two > tracks > > on your projects, one overview and one highly technical. I do not think I > > have gotten checks from all of the sponsors, so if you could fix that, it > > would be great. > > > > If you are an attendee, consider preparing a lighting talk. This is a > five > > minute talk on your choice, and we will try and have several lightning > > sessions > > > > If you have not already signed up http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com/ > > > > Thanks!! > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Your Agenda has the OpenEMR scheduled for Saturday > 10:00 - 12:00 Room 1 > > I wanted to update you and make sure I am on track with my thinking. > The OpenEMR group is to have a break out session from 10-12 on Saturday, > August 1st. > > I think you wanted me to speak on the practical application of > implementing an Electronic Health record in a physician's office? > > I have asked Robert Hoyt, Captain, USN, and professor of Health Care > Informatics at University of West Florida, Pensacola to speak about what is > known to be true about EHR what really does work and what we think works but > doesn't. > > Dr. Michael Brody is also coming and is an experienced speaker. Dr. > Brody is a working physician, has experience with PHP and LAMP > programming, and is a big open source proponent. He holds seminars on > HIPPA compliance. Dr. Brody is a member of HITSP has recently been > named a physician member of CCHIT. He is fresh off of the CCHIT meeting in > Chicago and will have the freshest information on what is > coming down the pipeline in terms of certification. > > We though we would break our time into 40 minute time slots, from 10:00 - > 12:00 > > Sincerely, > > Sam Bowen, MD > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Re: VistA Open Community Proposal v.2
Any user of VistA or VistA derivatives. I want the process by which the VA might open up to private institutions to be of benifit to other goverment agencies like IHS and even other governments. In fact if someone could put me in touch with the powers that be at IHS, that would be very helpful. -FT. On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Mike Ginsburg wrote: > > > Who comprises the "VistA community" for whom you are speaking? > > -Original Message- > From: hardh...@googlegroups.com on behalf of fred trotter > Sent: Fri 7/17/2009 8:08 PM > To: Hardhats; openhealth@yahoogroups.com; > open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com > Subject: [Hardhats] VistA Open Community Proposal v.2 > > Here is the next version. The biggest changes are to move from having a > VistA-community person to a VistA-community process > > > Thoughts? > > add them here please. > > http://libertyhsf.org/index.php/ovcp > > > This is the version .2 of the VistA Open Community Proposal that the > LibertyHSF will present on behalf of the VistA community to the VA > regarding > a new era of openness and collaboration around the VA VistA-based software. > > - Create a process for creating with the VistA community outside the VA. > This process should recognize the following operating principles > - Formally acknowledge that the VistA community outside the VA can > benefit Veterans by contributing improvements to VistA back to the VA. > - Formally acknowledge that the VistA community outside the VA can > provide better care to Veterans in private hospitals and clinics that > are VistA enabled. Many Veterans do not qualify for treatment at VA > hospitals but can still benefit from VistA. > - The VA should prefer Open Source Software in its software > acquisition process. This enables VistA users outside the VA to follow > the VA in software decisions and allows the community to further > enhance VA software by making their improvements available to the VA. > - Create a default open stance to FOIA requests. Create a process that > not only completes FOIA requests for software source code resources, > but provides a feedback mechanism to ensure that the FOIA releases are > complete. > - Some FOIA requests for VistA are very complex because they include > requests for complex sourcecode or data files that have mixed > copyright permission (CPT codes) find ways to ensure that complicated > requests can be met. > - By default, when FOIA available source code and applications is made > evailable insider the government, make it available to the public too. > (i.e. ensure that the contents of the VA Intranet software server, as > much as possible, is also published externally) > - Create a bridge-team: Ensure that the bridge process has enough > people invested that no single person can become a single point of > failure with VA communication with the outside VistA community. > - Overturn the moratorium of local VA hospital VistA development. > - Reinvest in local VA hospital VistA instances. Centrally managed > instances of VistA, with locally deployment. Flawed VistA modules from > one hospital should not take down the VistA instance of another hospital. > - Empower the bridge process with a VistA Community Portal. That portal > should provide the following services: > - Allow for the submission of improved VistA components back into the > VA, to be evaluated as Class III code for possible adoption by local > VA hospitals. > - Those submissions should always be public unless they are security > issues, and then they should be made public immediately after being > confirmed-patched/denied-ignored > - Publish a list of approved licenses for contributing VistA > components back (probably from proprietary friendly licenses like > Apache, Mozilla, BSD, MIT, X11, EPL etc etc, or just chose one if that > is easier). > - Organizations that submit patches, or improvements should expect > that someone from the bridge team will publicly comment on reasons for > rejection for a particular patch or software, if the VA will not adopt > the software. > - Have a feature request system, that is accessible only to groups who > are or represent live VistA instances outside the VA. This should > include local VA hospital programmers and CACS, people from IHS, > representatives from foreign organizations like Mexico and Jordan, and > private hospitals running VistA. This should provide a means for the > community to give feedback to the VA about the consequences of central
[openhealth] VistA Open Community Proposal v.2
Here is the next version. The biggest changes are to move from having a VistA-community person to a VistA-community process Thoughts? add them here please. http://libertyhsf.org/index.php/ovcp This is the version .2 of the VistA Open Community Proposal that the LibertyHSF will present on behalf of the VistA community to the VA regarding a new era of openness and collaboration around the VA VistA-based software. - Create a process for creating with the VistA community outside the VA. This process should recognize the following operating principles - Formally acknowledge that the VistA community outside the VA can benefit Veterans by contributing improvements to VistA back to the VA. - Formally acknowledge that the VistA community outside the VA can provide better care to Veterans in private hospitals and clinics that are VistA enabled. Many Veterans do not qualify for treatment at VA hospitals but can still benefit from VistA. - The VA should prefer Open Source Software in its software acquisition process. This enables VistA users outside the VA to follow the VA in software decisions and allows the community to further enhance VA software by making their improvements available to the VA. - Create a default open stance to FOIA requests. Create a process that not only completes FOIA requests for software source code resources, but provides a feedback mechanism to ensure that the FOIA releases are complete. - Some FOIA requests for VistA are very complex because they include requests for complex sourcecode or data files that have mixed copyright permission (CPT codes) find ways to ensure that complicated requests can be met. - By default, when FOIA available source code and applications is made evailable insider the government, make it available to the public too. (i.e. ensure that the contents of the VA Intranet software server, as much as possible, is also published externally) - Create a bridge-team: Ensure that the bridge process has enough people invested that no single person can become a single point of failure with VA communication with the outside VistA community. - Overturn the moratorium of local VA hospital VistA development. - Reinvest in local VA hospital VistA instances. Centrally managed instances of VistA, with locally deployment. Flawed VistA modules from one hospital should not take down the VistA instance of another hospital. - Empower the bridge process with a VistA Community Portal. That portal should provide the following services: - Allow for the submission of improved VistA components back into the VA, to be evaluated as Class III code for possible adoption by local VA hospitals. - Those submissions should always be public unless they are security issues, and then they should be made public immediately after being confirmed-patched/denied-ignored - Publish a list of approved licenses for contributing VistA components back (probably from proprietary friendly licenses like Apache, Mozilla, BSD, MIT, X11, EPL etc etc, or just chose one if that is easier). - Organizations that submit patches, or improvements should expect that someone from the bridge team will publicly comment on reasons for rejection for a particular patch or software, if the VA will not adopt the software. - Have a feature request system, that is accessible only to groups who are or represent live VistA instances outside the VA. This should include local VA hospital programmers and CACS, people from IHS, representatives from foreign organizations like Mexico and Jordan, and private hospitals running VistA. This should provide a means for the community to give feedback to the VA about the consequences of central VA development decisions. However, this would not put the VA in the position of accepting feature requests from people who merely 'might' use and improve VistA. - The features and contributions should be analysed against the current VA 'modernization' plan to create a new modernization plan that considers the needs and contributions of outside-VA VistA users. Original text by Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com Changes: v.1 to .2 spelling corrections Changed to focus on a bridge process rather than a bridge person Propose that the VA instead create a process which acknoledges the basic value of outside commitments etc etc Meta level policies that are intended to address Nancies outstanding issues. Changed the name from Open VistA Community Proposal to VistA Open Community Proposal b/c "OpenVistA" is trademarked, and not what I am referencing. Addressed comments from Hardhats and co-ment instance -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non
[openhealth] FOSS Health logistics
Hi everyone, So we have just gotten 95% confirmation that the facilities for FOSSHealth 09 (which happens at the end of the month) will be provided by HAL-PC. http://www.hal-pc.org/ HAL-PC is the largest PC users group in the world. We will have space for two tracks as well as a break room and (usually) a computer lab. The HAL-PC office is right by the galleria mall. If you are a confirmed speaker this year, please reply to this email. I am finalizing the speaking order and I do not want to forget anyone. If you have constraints like you have to speak on a particular day, then please include it here. Give us a one paragraph summary of your talks (great advertising!!) Generally, you should expect to talk for 50 minutes. However, your talk length should be no more than 30 minutes. You should leave 20 minutes for discussion and questions. If this is not enough time, then let me know, I will see about getting you an extra session. This is the first time when FOSS has been the focus of the entire conference and that gives us some flexibility. Please expect lots of chaos this year. It is our first year and we are just learning the conference ropes. If you are a sponsor, I am assuming that you will have at least two tracks on your projects, one overview and one highly technical. I do not think I have gotten checks from all of the sponsors, so if you could fix that, it would be great. If you are an attendee, consider preparing a lighting talk. This is a five minute talk on your choice, and we will try and have several lightning sessions If you have not already signed up http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com/ Thanks!! -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Fwd: physician privileges
Does any one know of a FOSS application that managed physician privileges? -FT > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Brian Sherman wrote: > >> Fred, I was looking around for an open source project that handles >> physician privileges for large hospitals, something along the lines of >> >> http://www.hcpro.com/coreprivilegeplus/ >> >> It seems like this would be an important part of healthcare IT >> interoperability with CMS and, by extension, any integrated government >> healthcare solution. I figured if anyone had that kind of information at >> their fingertips, it would be you. >> >> -brian >> > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] comment on VistA Standard Base
Hi, After having some success with the letter to the VA CTO using co-ment, Ignacio asked me to do the same thing with the VistA Standard Base draft process. This is a more objective means of moving forward with the a document writing process. For those who care, co-ment is the successor to stet which was the software used for document comment on the GPL version 3. The main benifit of co-ment is that it is both a FOSS project and an embeddable service from co-ment.net We have already gone through 7 release candidates on the Hardhats mailing list, and this represents the 9th release candidate. You can find it here: http://libertyhsf.org/index.php/vsb The basic idea behind the VistA Standard Base is to have some assurance that components of Vista are in predictable places. All modern MUMPS-based variants of VA VistA can be maee to conform to the VSB without impacting functionality (that is the idea in any case). One of the reasons why Unix is so successful is that people generally know that you should look for configuration files in /etc/ and program files in /bin/ or /usr/bin etc etc. VSB is designed to do the same thing for VistA. While I consider myself a member of this community, it would be sheer hubris for me to presume to call myself a Vista developer. I would like to be however, and things like VSB make VistA easier to for hopefuls like me. For instance, if I am reading a developer guide and it says: "find the patch listing" I have not idea what that means. I do not know what a VistA patch is, and I have no idea what process I should follow to find that file. However if the instructions read: "find the patch listing it lives under //vista//etc/patch_listing.txt, for openVistA that means /opt/openvista/1/etc/" the first statement is inscrui It also makes it easier to write meta-tools that work on multiple versions of VistA. Suppose I wanted to write a program that would track patches and automatically record new patches somehow. I could write a function that would traverse /opt/ for directories containing the term 'vista' and then recurse further to find the patch status for each instance. The alternative is a configuration file that would take an expert to fill out. With VSB I could write some kind of RPC proxy or firewall system and know that I could count on a particular port being used for VistA, again featuring auto-magical configuration. I hope I have given a few examples of why VistA standard base is helpful to new developers, and improves the basic modularity of VistA. The decisions made in VSB are somewhat arbitrary but then, the location of /etc/ is arbitrary too, and that seems to work. VSB is valuable precisely because it defines decisions that are by nature arbitrary, so that you do not need to know where everything is, just to get started somewhere. I have already left some comments on the document. Please help Ignacio to move forward on this. Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Open VistA Community Proposal
mmunity. Rather than have this debate on just Hardhats, I want to open it up to everyone. You can now comment on proposal using a co-ment instance (co-ment is the successor to stet which was used to take comments on the GPlv3) that is available through http://LibertyHSF.org Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Mirth meetup at the CONNECT conference
Hey, I just got a final ok from the mirth guys on having an 'old-school' interoperability meetup at Harry's (closest goggle maps result from hotel is correct) after the end of the conference Monday. I would love to expand that to a Mirth/MOSS meetup! Alesha/Tim are you guys here? Any one else from the old school community able to make it? We would love to see some VistA people there? No one is not invited Figure we can kick things off around 7 pm! -ft -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
It appears that we have nothing but either positive comments or questions about what happened. Rather than try and accurately summarize, I would prefer to link in the pdf that CCHIT created to cover the new certification model. http://tinyurl.com/kteyoq My inaccurate summary: They will no longer require updated certification based on version changes. They will allow for site level certification. (which is open source friendly) They will allow for modular certification (different products doing different parts) -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
I have not heard much about CCHIT since the townhall. I was very pleased, they addressed all of the issues I was concerned with. Everyone I have spoken with seems satisfied. I am inclined to embrace the new verification models whole hog. Can anyone think of a reason not to? Any lingering or new concerns? It seems like a complete ( and mutual) victory but I just want to be sure that we are not missing something. -ft -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] CCHIT call starting soon
Dial-In Number: (866) 900-5706 Conference ID: 15249954 The pdf for the slides is here... http://cchit.org/about/events/presentations/files/CCHIT%20Town%20Call%20-%20New%20Paths%20to%20Certification%20-%20Dialog%20with%20OS%20Community%20-%206-16-09.pdf -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Fwd: Updated invitation letter
Dear FOSS vendors, I have been generally concerned that organizations that do analysis/evaluations of EHR systems tend to be biases towards proprietary systems, or more generally clients. No one I have talked to believes that KLAS for instance, is credible. Recently I met Arthur Gasch and he made a good pitch that his EHR evaluation tool was free from the kinds of financial bias that seem to be the norm in our industry. He takes a fee from vendors to be in his system and he takes a fee to let clients search the system. But he does not take 'consulting fees' that seem to be norm in the industry. After hearing, this I have been working with him to create a 'Open Source License' button in his EHR selection tool. I think if people were aware of the basic implications of a FOSS license, and were aware that there was an option here, they would often choose the right path. Arthur and I are still working on how to include this selector in his EHR evaluation tool, but I want to let you know about his service and so I am forwarding you his pitch. I will be endorsing tools like this that inform users about the option of FOSS and have some kind of commitment to not take extra money from a particular vendor. -FT -- Forwarded message -- From: Arthur Gasch Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:32 AM Subject: Updated invitation letter To: fred trotter Dear Vendor > > From time to time we hear of open source EMRs. Fred Trotter does an > excellent job promoting them, as alternatives to proprietary, > CCHIT-certified EMRs, but the question remains - functionally, how > competitive are they. > MSP would like to offer you the opportunity to answer that question > definitively. You can register your current product on the MSP EHR Selector > (www.ehrselector.com), where its capabilities can be matched against our > database > of other EMR product features. The normal fee is $795, but MSP will waiver > that for six months, if you will complete the product profile and put the > system up live. If, after 6 months, you want to continue, pay just $495 for > the next year - the price we charged for an EMR developer subscription > 3-years ago. > > Open source EMRs could get a fair number of orders if they can show that > they are truly competitive, as physicians visit us from collaborating > organizations that include HIMSS, MGMA, ACC, AGA, AHQA and ACP, they search > our site for more than a few general requirements, so they are sure what > they are getting. There are plenty of deals to go around, what is missing is > any open source vendors. We invite open source vendors to check out the EHR > Selector by visiting the site <http://www.ehrselector.com>, and by > watching a brief video <http://www.ehrselector.com/ehr_video.wmv>. Here > are some recent enhancements we have made to the EHR Selector which you may > not be aware of. > >- 23 new practice specialties added, 45 total practice specialties now >supported. >- Simple, Search-and-Assert user interface. >- New EMR Profile Search feature - Pick ASP Profile and assert all ASP >criteria in 2 mouse clicks >- Regained assertion by individual criteria for our experienced users >and EMR consultants based on 600 individual criteria available > - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 CCHIT certifications, expanded from CCHIT >certification. > - All 2009 PQRI measures added > - New EMR sites - SNF, Home Health, Hospital in addition to Group >Practice >- Drill down of hospital EMR into ED, OR-PACU, OB, Adult ICU, Neonatal >and General Ward > - Expanded the Search feature into a Search & Select user interface >- Reorganized all Sections into logical sequence >- Added Consultants, Legal Services, Accounting, Post Install IT >Service, more >- Support for all major User Interfaces (Scanning, dictation, Speech, >Handwriting, Pick list, etc.) >- A new ARRA Meaningful Use feature Flag - features will be flagged >when announced. >- HIPAA compliance flags by features > - New Literature Request button >- Expanded DEMO button that now emails and also runs live demo (if you >provide one) >- Instant Vendor GO LIVE for all non-Vetted Items >- New Vendor Sales Activity reports > - MORE... > > If open source EMR want the widest possible exposure, being on the MSP EHR > Selector is a way to achieve it. If you would like to take advantage of this > offer, please contact Betty at 732-219-5090 X20 and she can provide a login > and password instantly. It usually takes 1 to 1.5 hours to complete the > feature summary, and most features go live then. Forty remain until vetting > occurs, something we do within a couple of days at a mutually
[openhealth] Liberty HSF Certification and Meaningful Use
The most pressing order of business for LibertyHSF is the status of FOSS EHR systems in the coming stimulus package. There are two issues that I believe LibertyHSF must weigh in on. The first is the definition of meaningful use from the FOSS perspective. The second, and more pressing, is the issue of certification, currently only WorldVistA is a CCHIT certified FOSS project and that certification will run out soon. If CCHIT cerfitication is used as a criteria for stimulus funding in the current form of the certification it will be detrimental to FOSS projects. CCHIT has been listening and working with us, but we need to decide if and at what point we need to setup a competing certification method and body. On the 16th CCHIT is hosting a town hall meeting specifically to discuss the FOSS certification isssues. By that time I want to have a semi formal process in place for deciding what the communities (to the degree that LibertyHSF can represent it) response will be. To that end, I am sending an inviation email to individual community members to participate on the important sounding 'meaningful use and certification commitee'. If you get an second email from me within the hour, you were invited, if you did not you were not. But my criteria for inclusion in this group is merely that you have A. Contributed to the discussion so far in a meaningful way or B. You are supporting a FOSS EHR in more than one live deployment. If you have talked to me about this issue either in person or over email over the last few months then I have tried to include you. If you meet these criteria and you want to be formally involved then please email me today or tomorrow requesting that I include you. I am inviting several people who I want to specifically point out in advance of their acceptance of the invitation because I know that they might be controversial. The first is Greg Caulton. I have been very critical of PatientOS in the past and I see no reason why I will not be -personally- critical of them in the future. But LibertyHSF is not 'freds party' but intended to be representative of the entire FOSS community. Whatever else I have to say about PatientOS it does appear to be in the process of becoming a ligit FOSS project. The reason that I feel Caultons/PatientOS inclusion may be controversial is that the project has the CCHIT feature set as an implict design document. In short PatientOS has implicitly endorsed the CCHIT definition of what an EHR is, as far as I know, they are the only FOSS EHR project to have taken this stand. While I disagree with this and other basic design decisions that PatientOS has made I can see no reason why PatientOS should not get a vote at this table. The second is Dr. Kibbe. I am inviting Dr. Kibbe specifically because he is an effective critic of the CCHIT model generally, and because he has participated in our community in the past. Recall that he attempted to promote a FOSS EHR for AAFP. If he accepts the bridge I hope that he will serve as a bridge to other groups who are frustrated with CCHIT and are wondering what to do. Last but certainly not least, I plan on including Dennis Wilson from CCHIT. Dennis is the project leader for Laika and is therefore a full member of the FOSS healthcare community. Better than anyone else at CCHIT he personally understands the implications of what a FOSS license implies, and what running a FOSS project is like. Most importantly we need a person from CCHIT to give balance to our discussion. I am inviting Dr. Kibbe and Dennis to specifically be outside advisors to our group, although they will have full access to any meetings or mailinglists, they will not be included in a final vote, unless the committee itself decides to overrule me on this stance. I have not idea if either Dennis, Dr. Kibbe or Greg will accept my invitation, but I wanted to let everyone know that they would be invited. Besides them, I am inviting the usual suspects. I have been advised to err on the side of being too inclusive with LibertyHSF, and the list of people that I am inviting to this is intended to be an initial stab at doing just that. All those in favor remain silent, all those opposed bitch loudly. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Re: Liberty HSF formation process
I was speaking to patent-holders generally, and not you personally. The negotiations we have had together are the template for how a patent-holder and a community might potentially work together. Should not have used 'you' in this context. Sorry. -FT On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Stephen Beller wrote: > Although it's easy to resent your implication of duplicity (trickery), I do > understand your practical, though rigid, position. > Thanks, > Steve > > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, fred trotter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Beller wrote: > > > > > Fred, > > > > > > This is encouraging and I wish you great success! > > > > > > Two questions: > > > > > > 1. How do you define "hybrid vendors" and distinguish them from FOSS > > > vendors? > > > > > > Anyone who makes money by supporting FOSS AND by selling proprietary > health > > software. > > > > > > > > > > 2. What roll, if any, do you see for companies having patented > > > methodologies? > > > > > > That is largely uncharted territory, but in general I would like to treat > > that in a similar fashion to hybrid vendors. They will be included and > > welcomed, while their slight bias against our core values will be > explicitly > > labelled. > > > > In my experience the FOSS community does not like to treated > condescendingly > > or tricked. If a vendor disagrees with some of our values, but still > wants > > to work with us in those areas that they agree with us, we should make > that > > fall over easy for them to do. I would think the same would hold true to > > patents. Do not try to trick us into implementing something that you are > > going to later try and charge us for, use standard FOSS patent licensing > > techniques and we should be just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Steve Beller > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Re: Liberty HSF formation process
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Beller wrote: > Fred, > > This is encouraging and I wish you great success! > > Two questions: > > 1. How do you define "hybrid vendors" and distinguish them from FOSS > vendors? Anyone who makes money by supporting FOSS AND by selling proprietary health software. > > 2. What roll, if any, do you see for companies having patented > methodologies? That is largely uncharted territory, but in general I would like to treat that in a similar fashion to hybrid vendors. They will be included and welcomed, while their slight bias against our core values will be explicitly labelled. In my experience the FOSS community does not like to treated condescendingly or tricked. If a vendor disagrees with some of our values, but still wants to work with us in those areas that they agree with us, we should make that fall over easy for them to do. I would think the same would hold true to patents. Do not try to trick us into implementing something that you are going to later try and charge us for, use standard FOSS patent licensing techniques and we should be just fine. > > > Thanks, > Steve Beller > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: Liberty HSF formation process
Everyone I have talked to in the FOSS community has indicated that the feature-bucket testing model that CCHIT currently puts forward does not work for us. I would like to work with CCHIT, but not under the constraints of accepting aspects of the current model that are broken. If anyone in our community has expressed concern with CCHIT to me, I can assure you that those complaints are at the forefront of my mind as I deal with CCHIT. So far CCHIT has been responding well, they have really listened and publicly acknowledged that there -is- a problem with thier current certification model. However, to actually address our needs, CCHIT may be forced to alienate their current, paying, consituency. So while I have respect for CCHIT, I have doubts that an organization formed under one certification model can adopt a substancially new one. So when do we as a community stop working with CCHIT and start our own certification body? I do not know. Dr. Kibbe has put forward a notion of certification that has resonated with many of the other groups who have felt disenfranchised with CCHIT. If they start an alternative to CCHIT and it is compatible with FOSS, that might be a third option that we should contribute our resources to rather than setting up our own certification body. However, certification of FOSS systems -should- be dramatically easier than certifying anything proprietary no matter what your certification model. Source code reviews are powerful and simple. We can do them easily and CCHIT et al cannot. So if we were not going to work with CCHIT, I would not want to get into a situation where we were doing a bunch of work, so that others could remain code-closed. I would like to propose that LibertyHSF Certification committee intentionally include a non-voting status so that we an invited people like Dr. Kibbe to partipate formally in our process without explicitly endorsing his perspective on certification generally. All those in favor remain silent and all those opposed bitch loudly. -FT On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:42 AM, David Kibbe wrote: > Fred and Colleagues: Congratulations on the foundational steps for Liberty > Health Software Foundation! A red letter day, to be certain. > Let me also suggest that too narrow a focus on just one approach to > software development for health care might simply duplicate the problems of > the past and of the legacy products. > > In other words, isn't the real issue innovation? Aren't we trying to > level the playing field so that generative, creative, affordable, and > easier-to-obtain-and-use products and services can (finally) reach the > market? > > Becoming the FOSS arm of CCHIT is to buy into the old paradigm of control > and exclusion, not to open up the aperture of innovation and offer > welcoming arms to what is new and different. Becoming the FOSS arm of > CCHIT is to accept a definition of EHR-as-feature-set-from-1995 that most > people in these forums probably don't accept as useful, and see as > restrictive. > > Why not reject "certification" all together as a principle of this new > organization, Liberty HSF, and propose an alternative quality assurance and > qualification approach to products/services, based around their use-ability, > conformance to open standards, safety of use, and security of information? > > Kind regards, and I look forward to an interesting discussion. > > DCK > > > David C. Kibbe, MD MBA > Senior Advisor, American Academy of Family Physicians > Chair, ASTM International E31Technical Committee on Healthcare Informatics > Principal, The Kibbe Group LLC > ___ > 919-647-9651 office > 913-205-7968 mobile > ___ > dki...@aafp.org > kibbeda...@mac.com > > CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is > confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or > disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this e-mail to anyone other > than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and > delete this. Thank you for your cooperation. This message has not been > encrypted. Special arrangements can be made for encryption upon request. > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 6:33 PM, fred trotter wrote: > > FOSS Community, > > I am writing to let you know that Liberty Health Software > Foundation has received 501c3 status. > Dr. Valdes and I have been working on this for over two years and we are > ready to present this to the community-at-large. > > The purpose of Liberty Health Software Foundation (LibertyHSF) is to > improve the delivery and science of healthcare by supporting the development > and use of Free/Libre Healthcare Software. > &
Re: [openhealth] Liberty HSF formation process
> > > 1. Training Programs - Both Paid and Sponsored That makes sense, but it is unclear what we should train on. WorldVistA is, as at first blush, a better organization for handeling VistA training, and there are typically corporate backers that offer training for other projects. Still I would like to consider that door open. > > 2. Healthcare Information Systems Certification programs and in this > case can be Basic, Intermediate and Advanced User Certs We are considering setting up an alternative to CCHIT. User certification will be difficult if we are to remain project neutral. > > 3. A professional network that runs Liberty Health Software > Conferences and Seminars for the masses around the 50 states as well > as in Canada and other countries where you would like to expand out > to. I am learning alot about running Health conferences with my experience with FOSSHealth. It is an open question how many conferences can be supported by us and if we should move to support local users groups. We are a very small community and i can (and have) called in favors to ensure good talks at a single conference, but how to ensure that there are good talks across the world? Not sure. > > 4. The training manual is a good idea but I see the need for a book or > a number of books on Free & Open Source Software in Health Care and > FOSS Health Care Information Systems. You can produce these books and > distribute them under Creative Commons free for online download where > as print and sell them through www.lulu.com. Again, how do choose which projects get books like this published? This is a really good idea and a big part of what we would like to do... > 5. There is no harm in maintaining a community of FOSS developers at > the foundation virtually or physically. Software Bundles with Support > options. You can provide software free but charge for the following: > a. Software Bundles with personal support US$250, group support > US$500, clinical support US$1000, large clinic support US$5000, Small > Scale Hospital Support US$10,000, Medium Scale Hospital Support > US$50,000 and Enterprise Scale Hospital Support US$1-500,000 plans. > b. Consulting Plans > c. Training Plans > d. Maintenance Plans > e. Remote Support Plans > f. Customized Development Plans I do not want to get into software support which I consider to be the domain of for-profit companies. We do not want to be seen as competing with the vendors that we hope to represent. Still if the vendors themselves clalled for some kind of support program, we might be willing to consider it. > 6. I would also recommend you to apply for a grant to the Rockefeller > Foundation as they are still supporting numerous FOSS programs and > organizations. That is exactly the plan. > > 7. I would recommend you to float CCHIT development on Google Summer > of Code and other FOSS Initiatives. This is a good idea, but I would not want to do this in competition with different projects. 8. Partnership with universities, especially medical healthcare > capacity development or academic centres to offer certificate > trainings. > Not sure how this would work.. but perhaps a textbook? > > 9. In the end, you need a strong marketing plan, every social > enterprise needs it and so do you so that the world knows you exist > and you add value to the social and economic systems either in the US > or abroad. Agreed. > > > 10. Get working on public relations, use means such as google adwords, > facebook and linked in. Get the show rolling! Agreed! > > > I hope these ideas will be useful and I am always available for > joining the foundation in strategy support etc. Btw, this me just in > case: http://satc.pk/?q=node/14 > > > -- > > Regards. > ------ > Fouad Bajwa > FOSS Advocate (South Asia) > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Liberty HSF formation process
d back FOSS conferences (like DOCHS and > FOSSHEALTH) > > OPEN QUESTION? > How do we run better conferences and meetings so that eventually we can > compete with HIMSS? > > -> Development organization: be a FOSS RWJ > -> Fund and/or internally develop FOSS solutions that are > 'orphan', the kind of projects that are not clearly profitable, but are > still useful. > -> Like documentation? > -> Like user manuals? > -> Like toolkits? > -> Like services that the community needs, like > CA services etc etc > > OPEN QUESTION? > How do we tell the difference between projects that need extra development > dollars and coders, and those that are largely self-sufficient? How do we > choose what projects to support? To a great extent, this will have to be > determined by those who donate either time or money? > > OPEN QUESTION? > How do we interact with other organizations like Open Health Tools and > WorldVistA? > > My plan so far: > > The following seems obviously true and represents 'already made' decisions. > > - We need to move away from me as benevolent dictator of this > organization quickly, to establish credibility. But a full BOD should be > something that the community has input on, we should have general > nominations etc etc. So Dr. Valdes, David Whitten and I will appoint an > arbitrary interim BOD (announced soon) which will allow us to move > quickly > and take our time thinking about the BOD issue long term. > - No one is going to have tons of time for this, and there need to be > sub-groupings of LibertyHSF for different purposes, sub-groups should > have > latitude to take positions for LibertyHSF on particular issues. These > should > take the form of small committees. > - Obvious initial groups include: > - A vendor association committee, made up of representatives of FOSS and > Hybrid vendors in order to establish strictly vendor positions. A > critical > first question for this group will be how does the FOSS community define > 'meaningful use'? > - A certification committee who will take over my role as chief > negotiator with CCHIT and determine when and if LibertyHSF needs to > become a > certifying body. > - Conferences and Development committees are equally important, but as we > have no general funds for development yet that is a non-issue, and the > conferences are already happening without LibertyHSF so these can wait. > > My short-term priorities are to create grass roots lobbying during this > politically critical time and to sort out the certification issue ASAP. > Should I have other very-short term priorities? > > Long term my priorities for LibertyHSF are: > to create an formal meeting place for the vendors in the industry that > represents them towards governments, > to sponsor important development that is not particularly 'profitable' > (assuming vendors will sponsor profitable development), like documentation, > or helpful libraries. > to create a conference or series of conferences that become the central > meeting point(s) for our community > to increase between project collaboration > to educate clinicians about software freedom > to lobby in support of FOSS in healthcare > to encourage the use of FOSS in health academia > to collaboratively develop standards/position documents when no other > existing organization can/will address the issue > to apply for grants for development funds > to provide education for the implications of FOSS licensing in healthcare > to provide a trusted third party for devisive community issues > to make health databases and health data services available in a FOSS > compatible fashion, (like a FOSS drug database) > to encourage proprietary health software vendors to become hybrid or purse > FOSS software vendors > to remain neutral to particular projects but still recognizing the > relevance > of a user base (i.e. no preference between Canonical and Redhat but still > recognize that GNU/Linux is more relevant than FreeDOS) > to make LibertyHSF -our- organization and not just -my- organization... to > that end: > > What long term and short term priorities am I missing? What does the > community want and need from this organization? > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Liberty HSF formation process
ime for this, and there need to be sub-groupings of LibertyHSF for different purposes, sub-groups should have latitude to take positions for LibertyHSF on particular issues. These should take the form of small committees. - Obvious initial groups include: - A vendor association committee, made up of representatives of FOSS and Hybrid vendors in order to establish strictly vendor positions. A critical first question for this group will be how does the FOSS community define 'meaningful use'? - A certification committee who will take over my role as chief negotiator with CCHIT and determine when and if LibertyHSF needs to become a certifying body. - Conferences and Development committees are equally important, but as we have no general funds for development yet that is a non-issue, and the conferences are already happening without LibertyHSF so these can wait. My short-term priorities are to create grass roots lobbying during this politically critical time and to sort out the certification issue ASAP. Should I have other very-short term priorities? Long term my priorities for LibertyHSF are: to create an formal meeting place for the vendors in the industry that represents them towards governments, to sponsor important development that is not particularly 'profitable' (assuming vendors will sponsor profitable development), like documentation, or helpful libraries. to create a conference or series of conferences that become the central meeting point(s) for our community to increase between project collaboration to educate clinicians about software freedom to lobby in support of FOSS in healthcare to encourage the use of FOSS in health academia to collaboratively develop standards/position documents when no other existing organization can/will address the issue to apply for grants for development funds to provide education for the implications of FOSS licensing in healthcare to provide a trusted third party for devisive community issues to make health databases and health data services available in a FOSS compatible fashion, (like a FOSS drug database) to encourage proprietary health software vendors to become hybrid or purse FOSS software vendors to remain neutral to particular projects but still recognizing the relevance of a user base (i.e. no preference between Canonical and Redhat but still recognize that GNU/Linux is more relevant than FreeDOS) to make LibertyHSF -our- organization and not just -my- organization... to that end: What long term and short term priorities am I missing? What does the community want and need from this organization? -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
Ok... I will call that a consensus and we will change the name!! -FT On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Elwell, Tim wrote: > > I believe 'health' is more appropriate as well. > > Tim Elwell > > -Original Message- > From: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of fred trotter > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 9:30 PM > To: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com > Cc: hardh...@googlegroups.com; openhealth@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical > Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as > Utility act > > > If there is a broad consensus that 'Health' is a more appropriate > name, then I will change the name. I have registered LibertyHSF.org > for that purpose. > > Anyone care to add an opinion? > > -FT > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Edmund Billings > wrote: > > Health is broader and may be more appropriate than Medical... > > > > Medical connotes physician centered care which is just part of the > solutions. > > > > Edmund > > ___ > > Edmund Billings MD > > Chief Medical Officer > > Medsphere > > 1917 Palomar Oaks Way > > Suite 200 > > Carlsbad, CA 92008 > > 760.692.3700 office > > 415.505.8953 cell > > www.medsphere.com > > > > "Transforming Healthcare through Open Source" > > > > From: hardh...@googlegroups.com [hardh...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > fred trotter [fred.trot...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:59 PM > > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com > > Cc: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com; > hardh...@googlegroups.com > > Subject: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical Software > Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act > > > > This is unlikely to be a problem if we simply consistently refer to > > the organization as either > > > > 'LibertyMSF' and/or > > 'Liberty Medical Software Foundation' > > > > please help me be referring to it that way. Once we have do that for a > > while, the distinction should become clear. > > > > -FT > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:42 AM, David Forslund > wrote: > >> My only concern about this proposal is that there is a company with the > >> name Liberty Medical out there (http://www.libertymedical.com). That > >> might create some confusion as well as some legal issues, but then I'm > >> no lawyer. (in fact, when I saw the title of the email, I initially > >> thought it was something connected with that company, which does a lot > >> of advertising on TV). > >> > >> Dave Forslund > >> > >> > >> fred trotter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> At the behest of many of the vendors and individuals within > >>> the community, we are now announcing the creation of the Liberty > >>> Medical Software Foundation. > >>> > >>> http://libertymsf.org <http://libertymsf.org> > >>> > >>> This organization will exist to be our HIMSS, our EHR vendor > >>> association and, if needed, our CCHIT. It is intended to serve both > >>> the needs of the FOSS vendor community, and the community of > >>> individual developers and clinical users of FOSS EHR software. It is > >>> intended to be a place where FOSS companies like Medsphere or > >>> ClearHealth can sit at the same table with FOSS friendly proprietary > >>> companies like Misys and DSS! This is intended to be a place where a > >>> single developer from OpenEMR will be shown the same deference and > >>> respect as the CEO of IBM. > >>> > >>> We cannot afford an Open Source vs. Free Software divide in > >>> our community. That is the reason we chose the term 'Liberty' for our > >>> name. Openness is good, but it is not enough, we need freedom. But we > >>> cannot go around having the conversation: > >>> "When I say Free, I do not mean what you hope it means. You hope it > >>> means costless. In fact I plan to charge quite allot of money for this > >>> free stuff, but you will have freedom when I am done. Of course it is > >>> -often- true that when I say free I mean that you can just download it > >>> off sourceforge f
Re: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
If there is a broad consensus that 'Health' is a more appropriate name, then I will change the name. I have registered LibertyHSF.org for that purpose. Anyone care to add an opinion? -FT On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Edmund Billings wrote: > Health is broader and may be more appropriate than Medical... > > Medical connotes physician centered care which is just part of the solutions. > > Edmund > ___ > Edmund Billings MD > Chief Medical Officer > Medsphere > 1917 Palomar Oaks Way > Suite 200 > Carlsbad, CA 92008 > 760.692.3700 office > 415.505.8953 cell > www.medsphere.com > > "Transforming Healthcare through Open Source" > > From: hardh...@googlegroups.com [hardh...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of fred > trotter [fred.trot...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:59 PM > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com > Cc: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com; hardh...@googlegroups.com > Subject: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical Software > Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act > > This is unlikely to be a problem if we simply consistently refer to > the organization as either > > 'LibertyMSF' and/or > 'Liberty Medical Software Foundation' > > please help me be referring to it that way. Once we have do that for a > while, the distinction should become clear. > > -FT > > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:42 AM, David Forslund wrote: >> My only concern about this proposal is that there is a company with the >> name Liberty Medical out there (http://www.libertymedical.com). That >> might create some confusion as well as some legal issues, but then I'm >> no lawyer. (in fact, when I saw the title of the email, I initially >> thought it was something connected with that company, which does a lot >> of advertising on TV). >> >> Dave Forslund >> >> >> fred trotter wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> At the behest of many of the vendors and individuals within >>> the community, we are now announcing the creation of the Liberty >>> Medical Software Foundation. >>> >>> http://libertymsf.org <http://libertymsf.org> >>> >>> This organization will exist to be our HIMSS, our EHR vendor >>> association and, if needed, our CCHIT. It is intended to serve both >>> the needs of the FOSS vendor community, and the community of >>> individual developers and clinical users of FOSS EHR software. It is >>> intended to be a place where FOSS companies like Medsphere or >>> ClearHealth can sit at the same table with FOSS friendly proprietary >>> companies like Misys and DSS! This is intended to be a place where a >>> single developer from OpenEMR will be shown the same deference and >>> respect as the CEO of IBM. >>> >>> We cannot afford an Open Source vs. Free Software divide in >>> our community. That is the reason we chose the term 'Liberty' for our >>> name. Openness is good, but it is not enough, we need freedom. But we >>> cannot go around having the conversation: >>> "When I say Free, I do not mean what you hope it means. You hope it >>> means costless. In fact I plan to charge quite allot of money for this >>> free stuff, but you will have freedom when I am done. Of course it is >>> -often- true that when I say free I mean that you can just download it >>> off sourceforge for no cost. So I mean 'Free-as-in-freedom' and >>> 'free-as-in-beer' at different points in this conversation and you >>> are expected to keep up based on context clues." >>> >>> The vendors are going to have trouble trying to sell 'free' stuff no >>> matter how you cut it. Also, even if we wanted to use Open, everyone >>> and their dog has an organization that begins with 'Open' I can rattle >>> off seven without thinking hard. When we previously discussed starting >>> something like this using the term 'Free' people got pretty huffy. >>> >>> Liberty is the compromise. You might be paying millions for the >>> deployment of software that you can download from sourceforge for no >>> cost, and that is OK but what you need to have is 'Liberty'. I hope >>> everyone is as please with this compromise as I am. We will be >>> announcing membership and leadership shortly, but you can be assured >>> the usual suspects will be involved or at least
[openhealth] Re: Foss Health 09
Be sure to use 'open' as a registration code for a significant discount! -FT On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:06 PM, fred trotter wrote: > Dr. Brody has been helping me to setup a hotel discount for FOSShealth 09. > > If you have not registered yet go to http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com > > If you have registered but do not have a hotel, please read below for > good group rates, close to the conference. > > -FT > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Michael Brody > Date: Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM > Subject: Hotel Stuff > To: fred trotter > > > We have a block of rooms available at $89 / night at the Marriott > Houston West Loop by the Galleria > There are a limited number of Rooms for Thursday, Friday and Saturday Night > The Group Name is FOSS > The hotel # is (713) 960 0111 > > The rooms are being held for us for a limited time. Please post so > people can make reservations it would be great if many of the meeting > participants were at the same hotel. That would make after conference > networking much easier. > > Michael > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Foss Health 09
Dr. Brody has been helping me to setup a hotel discount for FOSShealth 09. If you have not registered yet go to http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com If you have registered but do not have a hotel, please read below for good group rates, close to the conference. -FT -- Forwarded message -- From: Michael Brody Date: Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM Subject: Hotel Stuff To: fred trotter We have a block of rooms available at $89 / night at the Marriott Houston West Loop by the Galleria There are a limited number of Rooms for Thursday, Friday and Saturday Night The Group Name is FOSS The hotel # is (713) 960 0111 The rooms are being held for us for a limited time. Please post so people can make reservations it would be great if many of the meeting participants were at the same hotel. That would make after conference networking much easier. Michael -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
This is unlikely to be a problem if we simply consistently refer to the organization as either 'LibertyMSF' and/or 'Liberty Medical Software Foundation' please help me be referring to it that way. Once we have do that for a while, the distinction should become clear. -FT On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:42 AM, David Forslund wrote: > My only concern about this proposal is that there is a company with the > name Liberty Medical out there (http://www.libertymedical.com). That > might create some confusion as well as some legal issues, but then I'm > no lawyer. (in fact, when I saw the title of the email, I initially > thought it was something connected with that company, which does a lot > of advertising on TV). > > Dave Forslund > > > fred trotter wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> At the behest of many of the vendors and individuals within >> the community, we are now announcing the creation of the Liberty >> Medical Software Foundation. >> >> http://libertymsf.org <http://libertymsf.org> >> >> This organization will exist to be our HIMSS, our EHR vendor >> association and, if needed, our CCHIT. It is intended to serve both >> the needs of the FOSS vendor community, and the community of >> individual developers and clinical users of FOSS EHR software. It is >> intended to be a place where FOSS companies like Medsphere or >> ClearHealth can sit at the same table with FOSS friendly proprietary >> companies like Misys and DSS! This is intended to be a place where a >> single developer from OpenEMR will be shown the same deference and >> respect as the CEO of IBM. >> >> We cannot afford an Open Source vs. Free Software divide in >> our community. That is the reason we chose the term 'Liberty' for our >> name. Openness is good, but it is not enough, we need freedom. But we >> cannot go around having the conversation: >> "When I say Free, I do not mean what you hope it means. You hope it >> means costless. In fact I plan to charge quite allot of money for this >> free stuff, but you will have freedom when I am done. Of course it is >> -often- true that when I say free I mean that you can just download it >> off sourceforge for no cost. So I mean 'Free-as-in-freedom' and >> 'free-as-in-beer' at different points in this conversation and you >> are expected to keep up based on context clues." >> >> The vendors are going to have trouble trying to sell 'free' stuff no >> matter how you cut it. Also, even if we wanted to use Open, everyone >> and their dog has an organization that begins with 'Open' I can rattle >> off seven without thinking hard. When we previously discussed starting >> something like this using the term 'Free' people got pretty huffy. >> >> Liberty is the compromise. You might be paying millions for the >> deployment of software that you can download from sourceforge for no >> cost, and that is OK but what you need to have is 'Liberty'. I hope >> everyone is as please with this compromise as I am. We will be >> announcing membership and leadership shortly, but you can be assured >> the usual suspects will be involved or at least invited. >> >> Our first project, and the reason that we are unveiling this now, is >> to activate the community in support of the Health IT Public Utility >> Act of 2009. >> >> We have created a petition that we will be submitting to generously to >> congressional representatives. (Just go to our homepage) Note that we >> specifically choose a petition engine that allows you to sign with >> comments, and those comments will be passed along as slightly modified >> petitions. Essentially this is a way for you to both sign a letter to >> Congress, and also send an individual note, with LibertyMSF doing most >> of the grunt work. (Note: Dr. Billings did much of the content of the >> petition in his letter published here earlier) >> >> Most importantly, you can forward the petition to your email contacts, >> or your favorite social network. If you are reading this, and you >> agree with the basic principles outlined in the legislation, please >> take it upon yourself to get ten people you know who are not in this >> community to sign the petition. >> >> I want to be clear: The only thing this community has going for it >> politically is being right. The profit margins of the average large >> proprietary EHR vendor will always dwarf the resources of even our >> largest vendors. They can always leverage their vendor lock-in to &
[openhealth] Mark Leavitt discusses FOSS at HIMSS
I missed this video, but touches on FOSS. http://vimeo.com/4076909 -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
We will be doing that too ;) -FT On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > > Thanks, Fred. Your thinking makes sense. But I am a geek wannabe, not > a lawyer. My advice is just to get good advice. > > Regards > -- Bhaskar > > On 05/07/2009 11:07 AM, fred trotter wrote: >> One of the primary purposes of LibertyMSF will be to work on orphan >> projects like written documentation or code documentation, and we want >> to be able to apply for grants and such. We also want to be able to >> accept donations directly from individuals. For this reason we will be >> going 501c3 >> >> The Health IT Public Utility Act of 2009 is unique because I had >> honestly thought that direct 'lobbying' (as in trying to influence the >> passing of legislation) would be outside our mission statement. >> However, 501c3 can do limited lobbying and the kinds of lobbying that >> we plan to do for this bill and bills like it are essentially >> costless, and well within the limitations of what a 501c3 is allowed >> to do. (IANAL etc etc) >> >> There will so rarely be an actual 'bill' that comes up, that I do not >> think we will spend much time on this. I hope that LibertyMSF will >> become more regularly involved in policy papers rather than directly >> active on legislation. >> >> As for a trade association, (or 501c6) it is my limited understanding >> that they have to survive on the dues of its members. The problem with >> that is that any organization that hopes to represent our community >> must reconcile the fact that what is in the companies best interests >> is not always the same thing as the interests of the individuals in >> the community. If LibertyMSF were limited to representing just >> corporate members, we would eventually become beholden to only 50% of >> the relevant interests. Again, the proprietary EHR industry has the >> glut of funds needed to run several different organizations, our >> community simply does not. For this reason we will be following the >> 'patron' model that the Free Software Foundation uses. >> >> Of course, as we move forward we are open to changing course on issues >> like this, but for now, I wanted to explain our initial thinking. Does >> this make sense? >> >> -FT > > _ > > The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. > If you are not the > intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do > not disclose, > distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender > immediately. In addition, > please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to > archiving and review by > persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. > _ > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ > http://groups.google.com/group/Hardhats > To unsubscribe, send email to hardhats-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: [Hardhats] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
One of the primary purposes of LibertyMSF will be to work on orphan projects like written documentation or code documentation, and we want to be able to apply for grants and such. We also want to be able to accept donations directly from individuals. For this reason we will be going 501c3 The Health IT Public Utility Act of 2009 is unique because I had honestly thought that direct 'lobbying' (as in trying to influence the passing of legislation) would be outside our mission statement. However, 501c3 can do limited lobbying and the kinds of lobbying that we plan to do for this bill and bills like it are essentially costless, and well within the limitations of what a 501c3 is allowed to do. (IANAL etc etc) There will so rarely be an actual 'bill' that comes up, that I do not think we will spend much time on this. I hope that LibertyMSF will become more regularly involved in policy papers rather than directly active on legislation. As for a trade association, (or 501c6) it is my limited understanding that they have to survive on the dues of its members. The problem with that is that any organization that hopes to represent our community must reconcile the fact that what is in the companies best interests is not always the same thing as the interests of the individuals in the community. If LibertyMSF were limited to representing just corporate members, we would eventually become beholden to only 50% of the relevant interests. Again, the proprietary EHR industry has the glut of funds needed to run several different organizations, our community simply does not. For this reason we will be following the 'patron' model that the Free Software Foundation uses. Of course, as we move forward we are open to changing course on issues like this, but for now, I wanted to explain our initial thinking. Does this make sense? -FT On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:10 AM, K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > I'll second that. There are (at least) two types of non-profit > organizations in the US: those incorporated under section 501(c)(3) and > 501(c)(6). Before you incorporate, do check which with an attorney as > to which is best for your needs. There certainly is a need in the FOSS > health space for both types. > > Regards > -- Bhaskar > > On 05/07/2009 03:03 AM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: >> Fred, >> >> From your description this sounds very much like a trade association >> not a 501 c 3 as your advertised objective on the website. How far are >> you in the "midst" of applying for 501 c 3... are you working through a >> good not for profit lawyer? >> >> Joseph > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Announcing Liberty Medical Software Foundation and a petition in support of the current VistA as Utility act
Hi, At the behest of many of the vendors and individuals within the community, we are now announcing the creation of the Liberty Medical Software Foundation. http://libertymsf.org This organization will exist to be our HIMSS, our EHR vendor association and, if needed, our CCHIT. It is intended to serve both the needs of the FOSS vendor community, and the community of individual developers and clinical users of FOSS EHR software. It is intended to be a place where FOSS companies like Medsphere or ClearHealth can sit at the same table with FOSS friendly proprietary companies like Misys and DSS! This is intended to be a place where a single developer from OpenEMR will be shown the same deference and respect as the CEO of IBM. We cannot afford an Open Source vs. Free Software divide in our community. That is the reason we chose the term 'Liberty' for our name. Openness is good, but it is not enough, we need freedom. But we cannot go around having the conversation: "When I say Free, I do not mean what you hope it means. You hope it means costless. In fact I plan to charge quite allot of money for this free stuff, but you will have freedom when I am done. Of course it is -often- true that when I say free I mean that you can just download it off sourceforge for no cost. So I mean 'Free-as-in-freedom' and 'free-as-in-beer' at different points in this conversation and you are expected to keep up based on context clues." The vendors are going to have trouble trying to sell 'free' stuff no matter how you cut it. Also, even if we wanted to use Open, everyone and their dog has an organization that begins with 'Open' I can rattle off seven without thinking hard. When we previously discussed starting something like this using the term 'Free' people got pretty huffy. Liberty is the compromise. You might be paying millions for the deployment of software that you can download from sourceforge for no cost, and that is OK but what you need to have is 'Liberty'. I hope everyone is as please with this compromise as I am. We will be announcing membership and leadership shortly, but you can be assured the usual suspects will be involved or at least invited. Our first project, and the reason that we are unveiling this now, is to activate the community in support of the Health IT Public Utility Act of 2009. We have created a petition that we will be submitting to generously to congressional representatives. (Just go to our homepage) Note that we specifically choose a petition engine that allows you to sign with comments, and those comments will be passed along as slightly modified petitions. Essentially this is a way for you to both sign a letter to Congress, and also send an individual note, with LibertyMSF doing most of the grunt work. (Note: Dr. Billings did much of the content of the petition in his letter published here earlier) Most importantly, you can forward the petition to your email contacts, or your favorite social network. If you are reading this, and you agree with the basic principles outlined in the legislation, please take it upon yourself to get ten people you know who are not in this community to sign the petition. I want to be clear: The only thing this community has going for it politically is being right. The profit margins of the average large proprietary EHR vendor will always dwarf the resources of even our largest vendors. They can always leverage their vendor lock-in to force more and more money out of their customers. We simply cannot compete with their lobbying dollars. We have to organize and mobilize. We need to reach out to the larger FOSS movement. We need to get out local Linux Users Groups or Python users group or PHP or whatever, aware of the basic tenants of our argument. We need to reach many, many more doctors. We need to get nurses involved. VistA has proven that the only way to solve the problem of healthcare automation is through the use of collaborative development that is only possible inside the VA with a single shared employer who owns everything or the use of FOSS licenses outside the VA. Please also signup for an account on LibertyMSF.org so that we can get ahold of you. We do not have direct access to the details of petition signers. Please email me personally if you are interested in fomenting a local chapter of LibertyMSF in your area or something like... Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] FOSS community discount code to FOSS Health 09
Hi, I will be taking out an ad in Linux Journal for the 09 FOSS Health conference. In it I will be offering a discount code worth $100 off for the conference. I will offer the same discount to this community directly. Please use the discount code 'open' for this purpose. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: Meaningful use testimony is up
There is some confusion. I cannot change my written testimony. I am -not- going to read what I wrote. my spoken testimony will be very different. If you comment -on my blog- not here, then I will refer to you comments in my talk. Everything posted by mail is useless to me. Please post to my blog. -ft On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, Adamson, Alesha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Fred, > > 1st - break a leg. > > 2nd - please forgive the terseness; I'm multi-tasking. > > 3rd - these are my opinions and thoughts, no one else or anything else is > responsible for them. I am assuming your audience is not technical, are in > fact beauracrats, and want to understand your perspective. > > - there is a lot of Jargon. Need to define: GPL, Underground Railroad, Best > in Klas. > - explaining the word Hacker and Hacktivist is like me trying to "fix" the > use of the word "lady". Hacker got screwed down in the last century, this is > not the time to try and fix it, leave more time for questions. Hacker is a > word that scares a lot of people. Does the value of this part of the > discussion outweigh the potential benefit? > - when you describe technologies "I love web 2.0 ..." and mentioning SQL/OOP; > my experience is that this type of talk alienates my non-tech audience and > causes some to think I am hiding behind my profession. Others just dismiss me > for being out of touch. You can say the same thing wothout the Jargon. > _ when you start talking about "specs" spell it out "requirements > specifications." Do not assume they know SDLC. > _the first paragraph in the clearhealth mirrormed section is totally > confusing to me. Do not assume they know that a code base can be shared, do > not assume they know what "code base" means. > - when you call out sage and assert their market share would be improved with > GPL, you are speculating. Your sage callout may generally be misplaced and > this may not be the right time for it. > -you mention the modern hcare article but do not say what was in it. You jump > right into attcking the author. > - re/consider pointing and calling people "beauracrat". You are there to > influence beauracrats a.k.a. People who will vote on/define legislation > - by saying the only people worth listening to are U.Railroad card holders > you do two things: 1. Minimize your value as a self identified novice 2. > Suggest only a handful of people get it, that the next generation is > un-teachable, the humans cannot evolve, or add value, and so on > - phrases like "babbling about" are derisive, maybe that's what you want to > express? > - you do a drive-by on Mumps, does it have value in this way? More time for > questions? Or explain the Mumps question. > > I wish I had the time to be more involved - I certainly have more thoughts. I > do not intend to play arm-chair testifier :) I am wishing you clarity, > conciseness, and efficacy! > > .alesha > > - Original Message - > From: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com > > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com ; > hardh...@googlegroups.com ; > open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Tue Apr 28 10:05:53 2009 > Subject: Meaningful use testimony is up > > > Well I am here in Washington D.C. Waiting to testify this afternoon. > > I have stayed up all night rewriting my testimony. I have not > practiced my talk enough but I have already posted my written > testimony on fredtrotter.com > > I consider you my constituents here if you are not satisfied with my > testimony post something to my blog and I will try to approve anything > reasonable before my testimony. Please tell who you are if you decide > to comment > > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > > > > > "Misys" is the trade name for Misys plc (registered in England and Wales). > Registration Number: 01360027. Registered office: One Kingdom Street, London > W2 6BL, United Kingdom. For a list of Misys group operating companies please > go to http://www.misys.com/corp/About_Us/misys_operating_companies.html. This > email and any attachments have been scanned for known viruses using multiple > scanners. This email message is intended for the named recipient only. It may > be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the named recipient of this > email please notify us immediately and do not copy it or use it for any > purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. This email does not > constitute the commencement of legal relations between you and Misys plc. > Please refer to the e
[openhealth] Meaningful use testimony is up
Well I am here in Washington D.C. Waiting to testify this afternoon. I have stayed up all night rewriting my testimony. I have not practiced my talk enough but I have already posted my written testimony on fredtrotter.com I consider you my constituents here if you are not satisfied with my testimony post something to my blog and I will try to approve anything reasonable before my testimony. Please tell who you are if you decide to comment -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: [openEHR-announce] Microsoft Connected Health Framework (CHF) uses archetypes]
Certainly a victory for the standard. Can you safely build FOSS with the Microsoft Connect Health Framework? -FT On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > Forwarded Message > From: Thomas Beale > To: openehr-announce > Subject: [openEHR-announce] Microsoft Connected Health Framework (CHF) > uses archetypes > Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:08:55 +0100 > > The latest edition of Microsoft's Connected Health Framework - a > strategy based on the idea of 'knowledge-driven health' (see > http://www.microsoft.com/industry/healthcare/technology/HealthFramework.mspx) > - includes openEHR (ISO 13606-2) archetypes as part of its domain > knowledge architecture. There is much worth reading in this set of > documents, including a good analysis of the problem space, deployment > scenarios and issues, semantic and services architecture and much else > besides. > > > The quality of this work may surprise some used to working mostly in the > open source world. To those sceptics, I would recommend a read. It can > only be a good thing if domain-enabling from the openEHR > knowledge-oriented health computing platform appear in both open source > and commercial platforms such as Microsoft Windows. > > - thomas beale > > > > > > > ___ > openEHR-announce mailing list > openehr-annou...@openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-announce > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > ** > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > ****** > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Questions for the 'Meaningful Use' panel
Hi, As I mentioned before I have been asked to testify at the NCVHS Hearing on Meaningful Use. As far as I know I am the only FOSS representative there (although I know that Dr. Billings from Medsphere is planning on attending, can anyone else make it?) I have just received more specific questions from the NCVHS. Please use this thread to discuss these points inline. Also please recognize that I am specifically representing FOSS as opposed to Health IT generally, so making general points does not help me as much as making specific points about what implications FOSS community/licenses/process has for a question. Regards, -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com NCVHS Hearing on Meaningful Use April 28-29, 2009 Question for Panel Input Panel 1: Vision of Health and Health Care Transformed 1. What are the critical characteristics and enablers of a safe, patient-centric, high-quality health care system that optimizes patient outcomes? 2. What have been the major barriers to system-level improvement in the health care system? 3. How can incentives programs best be structured to support health reform? Panel 2: Meaningful Use Capacity/Functionality in EHRs 1. What EHR capacities/functionalities are absolutely required to enable a safe, patient-centric, high-quality health care system that optimizes patient outcomes? 2. What are the critical EHR functionalities (e.g., e-prescribing, decision support, problem list management) of which providers should be required to demonstrate use in order to be earn an incentive as a “meaningful user” of certified EHR technology in 2011? Should the functionalities or other specific requirements to meet the statutory “meaningful use” criteria be different or specific to provider type (i.e., eligible professionals, hospitals)? 3. Are these functionalities supported in current certified EHR products? If not, what are the gaps? 4. What additional functionalities would be most important to require providers use by 2014 or 2015? Panel 3: Meaningful Use Capacity/Functionality in Health Information Exchanges 1. What are the ways in which health information exchange enables a safe, patient-centric, high-quality health care system that optimizes patient outcomes? 2. What will the health information exchange landscape look like in 2011 (e.g., penetration of operational HIOs, e-prescribing networks), and how would that enable or constrain meaningful information exchange requirements? 3. What would be the trajectory over time of increasingly robust requirements for information exchange as more opportunities for exchange become available? 4. How might the incentives criteria be constructed so as not to penalize providers in areas not serviced by HIOs, and how would this change over time? Panel 4: Meaningful Use Capacity/Functionality in Quality Reporting 1. What are realistic goals for certified inpatient and ambulatory EHRs to achieve with respect to capture, retrieval, and reporting of data needed for quality measurement and informed clinical decision making in 2011? 2. What is the trajectory over time toward a “quality data set” to enable broader standardization of electronic data capture and reporting with EHRs needed to support clinical care and quality measurement? Describe the end goal and any interim milestones, barriers and enablers? 3. What other infrastructure or policy requirements need to be considered for HHS to enable and prepare for the sharing of electronic data for quality measurement? 4. Insofar as quality measures reporting using EHRs would be to State or Federal agency designated repository, what if any potentially practical mechanisms or other implications for assuring accuracy, validity, and privacy of submitted data should be considered? Panel 5: Path to Meaningful Use Capacity for Vendors 1. What is the “time to market” cycle from adoption of standards to installation across the client base? How does that enable or constrain criteria for 2011 for eligible professionals? Hospitals? Later years? 2. What are vendors’ expectations with respect to increased product demand in 2011 and after, and how do they expect to meet it? What are potential risks (for example, need for additional technical support to assure successful implementations) and how can they be mitigated? 3. How will vendors need to adapt their product development and upgrade cycles to synchronize with progress toward increasingly robust requirements for meaningful use, information exchange, and quality reporting? 4. What changes are anticipated in the vendor marketplace between now and 2016 as a result of the incentives? Panel 6: Path to Meaningful Use Capacity for Providers 1. What do providers see as the critical EHR functionalities to enable a safe, patient-centric, high-quality health care system that optimizes patient outcomes? 2. What are
Re: [openhealth] Re: I have been invited to testify on 'Meaningful Use'
Scot, your links did not come through. -FT On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Scot Silverstein wrote: >> > The data model is more a symptom than an underlying cause of the problem. > > I would agree and say in more detail that the lack of understanding of the > critical importance of a robust conceptual and logical data model for the > myriad facets of medicine is a symptom of an underlying set of problems - > that fall under the very broad categories of false assumptions and > underestimations. > > The set of problems has been studied with regard to IT for many years; for > example see this work: > > Social Informatics. An introductory essay entitled “Learning from > Social Informatics” by R. Kling at the University of Indiana can be > found at this > link. The book “Understanding And Communicating Social > Informatics” by Kling, Rosenbaum & Sawyer, Information Today, 2005 > (Amazon.com link here) > was based on this essay. > > Scot > > -openhea...@yahoogroups.com wrote: - > > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com > From: Rod Roark > Sent by: openhealth@yahoogroups.com > Date: 04/19/2009 11:08AM > cc: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com, "hardh...@googlegroups.com" > > Subject: Re: [openhealth] Re: I have been invited to testify on 'Meaningful > Use' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting article, but I'm not sure its conclusions are on-target. > > The data model is more a symptom than an underlying cause of the problem. > > > In my view the key point is that we cannot trust the existing > > "custodians" of medical IT to get it right. They haven't come close > > yet. The only way we'll get there is to require complete transparency > > at all levels. And fortunately the new administration does seem to > > value transparency. > > > And yes, transparency is of course what FOSS is all about. However that > > point should not be raised prematurely. > .. but perhaps when responding to > > the question of "how do we achieve transparency" > > > > Rod > > > Scot Silverstein wrote: > >> If you get a chance, please touch on "meaningful misuse" as in this story >> by a software engineer who became a patient: > >> > >> The Data Model That Nearly Killed Me > >> > http://www.syleum. > com/2009/ > 03/17/healthcare > -data-model/ > > >> > >> Scot > >> > >> > - > - > -- > >> Scot M. Silverstein, MD > >> Consultant in Medical Informatics > >> Teaching faculty in Healthcare Informatics and IT (Sept. 2007-) > >> Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics (2005-7) > >> College of Information Science and Technology > >> Drexel University > >> 3141 Chestnut St. > >> Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875 > >> > >> Email: > scot.silverstein@ > ischool.drexel. > edu > > >> Bio: www.ischool. > drexel.edu/ > faculty/ssilvers > tein/biography. > htm > >> Common Examples of HIT difficulty: > >> www.ischool. > drexel.edu/ > faculty/ssilvers > tein/medinfo. > htm > >> ARS KU3E, member www.arrl.org > >> > >> > -openhealth@ > yahoogroups. > com > wrote: - > >> > >> To: > open-ehealth- > collaborative@ > googlegroups. > com > > >> From: fred trotter < > fred.trotter@ > gmail.com >> > >> Sent by: > openhea...@yahoogro > ups.com > > >> Date: 04/18/2009 06:05PM > >> cc: " > hardh...@googlegrou > ps.com > " < > hardh...@googlegrou > ps.com >>, " > openhea...@yahoogro > ups.com > " < > openhea...@yahoogro > ups.com >> > >> Subject: [openhealth] Re: I have been invited to testify on 'Meaningful Use' > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sounds good... its got to be short. I do not have much time! > >> > >> > >> -FT > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Edmund Billings > >> > >> < > >> edmund.billings@ > >> medsphere. > >> com > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> We should collaborate on a position paper I will work so
[openhealth] Re: I have been invited to testify on 'Meaningful Use'
Sounds good... its got to be short. I do not have much time! -FT On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Edmund Billings wrote: > We should collaborate on a position paper I will work some points. > > Edmund > > __ > Edmund Billings MD > 415.505.8953 > > On Apr 18, 2009, at 2:46 PM, "fred trotter" > wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> It looks like I have been invited to testify in Washington on >> what it means to have 'Meaningful Use' of EHR systems. >> http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/090428ag2.pdf >> >> As before, I want to ensure that my testimony reflects the >> attitudes and values of our culture. Using Google moderator for the >> CCHIT meeting seemed to work. It is even more important this time, >> because I may be the only voice of reason (the FOSS angle) at this >> meeting. For this reason: >> >> http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=4a793&t=4a795 >> >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> >> > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open eHealth Collaborative" group. > To post to this group, send email to > open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-ehealth-collaborative+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-ehealth-collaborative?hl=en > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] I have been invited to testify on 'Meaningful Use'
Hi, It looks like I have been invited to testify in Washington on what it means to have 'Meaningful Use' of EHR systems. http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/090428ag2.pdf As before, I want to ensure that my testimony reflects the attitudes and values of our culture. Using Google moderator for the CCHIT meeting seemed to work. It is even more important this time, because I may be the only voice of reason (the FOSS angle) at this meeting. For this reason: http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=4a793&t=4a795 -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Mostly it was just the fact that they seemed willing to listen and recognize that FOSS really was different, and to see how their current structure did not really work for us. -FT On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Mark Spohr wrote: > Thanks for posting this, Fred. > It is a good overvirw of the situation and description of the problems. > I was wondering what CCHIT said that gave you hope that the FOSS > certification problems could be solved under their framework? > > Regards, > Mark > > On 4/12/09, fred trotter wrote: >> I have been writing a summary of the meeting.. I just posted it. >> >> http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ >> >> It includes the link to the audio for the sessions. >> >> -FT >> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Tim Cook >> wrote: >>> >>> So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that >>> could not be there? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tim >>> >>> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: >>>> Hey, >>>> Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. >>>> >>>> It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. >>>> I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to >>>> attend this meeting. It is open to the public! >>>> >>>> If I find a room change or have other relevant information I >>>> will update this message. >>>> >>>> -ft >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fred Trotter >>>> http://www.fredtrotter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Timothy Cook, MSc >>> Health Informatics Research & Development Services >>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook >>> Skype ID == timothy.cook >>> ****** >>> *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * >>> *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* >>> ****** >>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Mark Spohr, MD > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
I have been writing a summary of the meeting.. I just posted it. http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ It includes the link to the audio for the sessions. -FT On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that > could not be there? > > Thanks, > Tim > > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: >> Hey, >> Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. >> >> It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. >> I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to >> attend this meeting. It is open to the public! >> >> If I find a room change or have other relevant information I >> will update this message. >> >> -ft >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> >> >> >> > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > ** > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > ****** > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] fosshealth 09 tickets still cheap for 10 hours
Hey, Just a reminder, FOSS health tickets are still cheap for 10 hours. http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com/ -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Hey, Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to attend this meeting. It is open to the public! If I find a room change or have other relevant information I will update this message. -ft -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] FOSSHealth in Houston
Hi, The almost early bird rating has expired. I have gotten some complaints about the newly very expensiveness of the conference, and I have also gotten some requests to have a cheap option for those who might meet our community for the first time at the CCHIT meeting in Chicago next week. As before I have to be fair to those who signed up for the early and almost early bird rates. So I am raising the price again and creating another short term tickets. These will no longer be available after the HIMSS week. Please buy now. Do not be the guy who emails me saying... "we just missed it" (you know who you are...) http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Re: Early registration for the Houston FOSS in health conference ends today
yep a typo http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com -FT 2009/3/30 fred trotter : > http://fosshealth.eventibrite.com > > -FT > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Early registration for the Houston FOSS in health conference ends today
http://fosshealth.eventibrite.com -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] What are we asking CCHIT for?
HI, Please help me determine what I will present as the FOSS community perspective at the upcoming CCHIT/FOSS meeting. I have setup a Google Moderator page for determining what suggestions, exactly, are considered as favorable to the larger community. The Google Moderator system allows you to propose issues, and allows others to vote on those issues. I will do my best to cover the top rated suggestions. I have created several initial suggestions based on my original contact with CCHIT. Please find the page to contribute/vote on questions here: http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=35c32&t=36f61 Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Re: CCHIT meeting FOSS at HIMSS
Tim, That is great news! On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Elwell, Tim wrote: > > Fred -- Thanks for posting this. I have been asked to participate in the > CCHIT Meeting at HIMSS during the 2-3pm timeslot. Who else will be > participating? I know that Medsphere will show up in force, and I think that the other 'usual suspects' (ClearHealth, WebReach, DSS) will be there as well. I would like to see more of the community come out. I am concerned that projects like WorldVistA-Community and OpenEMR, who have large communities but not very much corporate presence will be under-represented. This invitation is to try and get more of them in the room. I am also not sure what the "call-in" capability will look like and I am concerned that people who call-in will have a substantially less good experience... > Perhaps we could use this forum to collect, aggregate and consolidate > concerns representing various OS community stakeholders and reduce to a > White Paper for submission. Anytime I hear the word 'stakeholder' I cringe. What that often means is 'listening to the most well-funded'. This is the mistake that makes CCHIT assume that they have already been working with us as a community. The Medspheres and ClearHealths of the world can take care of themselves. Significant community members like Webreach, Misys Open Source Software, OpenMRS, Open Health Tools and OpenClinica might be sympathetic but do not have a direct interest in FOSS EHR systems in the U.S. I really hope that the WorldVistA-Community shows up in force, since they are a large community and they have the only certified FOSS system I know of. (Are there others? That's a question I have not been able to get answered, and is very relevant now) So I think we will have to not only have to be inclusive with regards to stakeholders but find a way to fairly differentiate between interests. Still I think a white-paper is at least in part the way to go. I think it is something that we should consider sending not only to CCHIT but to the government. I also think we need to find a way to extend the opportunity to weigh in to people who are not there. I am glad that CCHIT is reaching out to people like you that are listening in the right places (and in the right way!!) that is a very good sign that this could work out. > I'd be happy to include the summary in my remarks to CCHIT. > > Regards, > > Tim Elwell > Misys Open Source Solutions > tim.elw...@misys.com > > -Original Message- > From: open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of fred trotter > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:45 PM > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com; > open-ehealth-collaborat...@googlegroups.com; Hardhats; Mark Leavitt; > Dennis Wilson > Subject: CCHIT meeting FOSS at HIMSS > > > Hello, >Recently, I was asked by several community members to > begin 'activating' the community at large against certain threats to > FOSS in healthcare. Dr. Valdes and I have been planning on doing this > for years, and, in our own ways, have both begun to attempt to make > the public aware of the issues that our community (FOSS Health IT) > faces. Dr. Valdes has been publishing several articles on the subject > at http://linuxmednews.com, which have meet with considerable success. > Including slashdotting: > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/10/2055229 > > While Ignacio has been taking a hard-line Free Software > approach, I have been (in a twist for me) taking an 'Open Source' > approach. The people who approached me at DOHCS were unanimous in > their belief that what FOSS needed from the government was merely a > level playing field, so that we could compete, and win, on our own > merits. > > The largest single threat to the future of FOSS in > healthcare in the US is the certification process mandated by the > stimulus act. The language provides funding for -certified- EHR > systems and eventually penalties for not using -certified- EHR > systems. > > The best established certification body is CCHIT. They have > not been named as the certification body, but they are likely lobbying > for that role. However, CCHIT has had an anti-open source stance for > years. For years, I and other activists in the community have chosen > to largely ignore this bias. Simply because CCHIT was an optional > certification. Now, things have changed. It is possible that the > government will mandating a certification program that is either CCHIT > or similarly unfriendly to FOSS. > > Recently I submitted my complaints to Dennis Wilson > (associated with both FOSS Laika and employed by CCHIT) who put me in > touch wi
[openhealth] CCHIT meeting FOSS at HIMSS
Hello, Recently, I was asked by several community members to begin 'activating' the community at large against certain threats to FOSS in healthcare. Dr. Valdes and I have been planning on doing this for years, and, in our own ways, have both begun to attempt to make the public aware of the issues that our community (FOSS Health IT) faces. Dr. Valdes has been publishing several articles on the subject at http://linuxmednews.com, which have meet with considerable success. Including slashdotting: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/10/2055229 While Ignacio has been taking a hard-line Free Software approach, I have been (in a twist for me) taking an 'Open Source' approach. The people who approached me at DOHCS were unanimous in their belief that what FOSS needed from the government was merely a level playing field, so that we could compete, and win, on our own merits. The largest single threat to the future of FOSS in healthcare in the US is the certification process mandated by the stimulus act. The language provides funding for -certified- EHR systems and eventually penalties for not using -certified- EHR systems. The best established certification body is CCHIT. They have not been named as the certification body, but they are likely lobbying for that role. However, CCHIT has had an anti-open source stance for years. For years, I and other activists in the community have chosen to largely ignore this bias. Simply because CCHIT was an optional certification. Now, things have changed. It is possible that the government will mandating a certification program that is either CCHIT or similarly unfriendly to FOSS. Recently I submitted my complaints to Dennis Wilson (associated with both FOSS Laika and employed by CCHIT) who put me in touch with Mark Leavitt. As a main result of that discussion, Mark has agreed to have a meeting with the community-at-large about this issue at HIMSS (please see the forwarded message from the CCHIT e-newsletter below). Granted, this is like offering to meet with the Rebel Alliance at the annual Death Star conference. However, Mark has also agreed to provide some kind of remote access capability for those of us who cannot afford the time, cost or moral compromise required to attend HIMSS. The meeting will be held at HIMSS on Monday, April 6, Room 10d, Session #2 2:00 – 3:00 PM I have heard from several of the HIMSS 'regulars' in our community that they will be going. However, it is critical that we have a show of force within the community from precisely those people who have the most to lose with regards to the certification issue: small support companies and individual consultants. I am going on vacation next week, so I will be silent on the mailing lists for a while. Would someone else please take the lead on coordinating the sharing of hotel rooms, etc etc. If you are already going and you would not mind 'putting someone up' so that they could attend this conference, please speak up. I have space for one in my hotel room starting Sunday. If you live in Chicago and you have a couch to spare, please speak up. We are becoming more 'organized' as we speak. Please watch this space for more announcements on how you can participate to keep the US government from making anti-FOSS blunders now and in the future. Best, -Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com -- Forwarded message -- From: Sue Reber Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM Subject: FW: CCHIT eNews: Seeking volunteers, Expansion, Interoperability and Open Source To: fred trotter Cc: Dennis Wilson Fred – see below “Commission Hosts Interoperability and Open Source Roundtables on Certification” in our regular electronic newsletter. C Sue Reber Marketing Director, CCHIT Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology 503.288.5876 office | 503.703.0813 cell | 503.287.4613 fax sre...@cchit.org --- majority of newsletter removed for brevity --- Commission Hosts Interoperability and Open Source Roundtables on Certification In addition to its annual Town Hall at the upcoming HIMSS09 Annual Conference in Chicago, the Certification Commission will be hosting two technical roundtables, co-located with the conference, for health IT vendors and developers. The first, “Interoperability 09 and Beyond: a look at CCHIT’s roadmap for the future”, will present the Commission’s interoperability roadmap and explore the standards and testing tools with which developers need to be familiar. The second, “Open Source Forum: a dialogue on certification for open source EHRs”, is designed to continue the discussion with open source developers with an interest in certifying EHRs. This session will allow an open exchange of the challenges and opportunities for making certified open source EHRs available to provide
[openhealth] Should we make FOSS Health conference exclusive?
Hi, So Early bird sales for the conference have gone really well. Much better than I expected, and potentially problematically well. If DOHCS attendance is any indicator, there will be a spike of late registrations. I may be running out of space, which is not a problem if I know months in advance but is a problem if I know days or hours. I have had several people email me saying "I just missed early bird registration, can I still get tickets at that price?" The answer is no, that would not be fair to the people who have registered on time. However, in sympathy to your pleas I have created a new "almost early bird" ticket sale that costs only a little more than early bird. You can purchase the tickets here: http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com I am telling you know, if you want to go, or you think you might want to go, buy your tickets now. Otherwise, you will forget and then you will be emailing me asking for special treatment again. The people who register earliest will get the best deal, I will only raise prices as the deadline approaches. Do not let this happen to you!! Now for the main point of my message. Is it appropriate for me to make this an invitation-only event, like FOO camp? I could call it Friends of Fred or FOF (ok thats a terrible idea). The point is, it would help me keep the conference size down and ensure that everyone there was really important and/or doing really interesting work. Frankly I do not like the idea, it feels bad to make anything FOSS closed like that, but otherwise, conference planning might be impossible. Let me know what you think!! -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Using Cell Phones to interface with OpenMRS
I am a little confused about what you are trying to do. What information. Exactly are you hoping to use SMS text to send -to- the clinician? What information, exactly are you hoping to use SMS text to get information -from- the provider? SMS is not at all a consistent platform, it is difficult to be sure texts have been received for certain, so I cannot imagine how you could build something reliable on top of it... Could you clarify your aims somewhat? -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Only one week left to register for FOSS Health conference for only $60
Hi, I just wanted to mention that there is less than one week left for the early bird discount for the FOSS Health IT conference in Houston this summer. There is a dramatic difference in price between the early bird and regular registration. The early bird registration is specifically to make the conference affordable for community members. It is $60 for early bird and $250 for regular. If you are going to come to this conference. Now is the time! Here is the registration site: fosshealth.eventbrite.com The conference will include the whos-who of Open Source Health IT! So far we have commitments from MOSS - Misys Open Source Clearhealth Medsphere Mirth/Webreach OpenMRS OpenClinica WorldVistA -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] misys connect
misys-connect was open sourced. You can find it if you look hard on sourceforge. Most importantly, the valuable and unique components from misys connect were contributed to the Mirth project, where they are currently maintained. Myself and several other community members specifically requested this from Misys, rather then creating a separate competing project. If you have any questions you should direct them to Alesha with Misys, who can give you the official story (I have no formal ties to Misys). -FT On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:06 AM, balu raman wrote: > Folks, > Is misys-connect open source ? > I see an announcement sometime in March 2008 where they claimed it to be open > sourced. I don't see any sites I can d/load from. > - balu raman > > === > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ---- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] FOSS Healthcare Unconference in Houston Summer of 09
Hi, The local FOSS revolutionaries in Houston, TX have decided that it is time to restart hosting a conference/unconference focused exclusively on FOSS in healthcare. DOHCS http://www.dohcs.org/ is awesome, but there is only so much that you can accomplish in a single day. (BTW you need to register soon if you want to make DOHCS). We also feel that Californians should not be the only ones having all the fun. So I am happy to announce the FOSS Healthcare conference. http://fosshealth.eventbrite.com/ The conference will be held here in Houston, TX the weekend of July 31st to August 2. We are trying to coordinate to have the WorldVistA conference at the same time/location, but for now that is up in the air. Early bird registration is really, really cheap. This is very intentional. I know that budgets are tight and travel is often the first thing to go. We are making early bird registration cheap enough that you might be able to fund the trip out-of-pocket if you are an individual contributor to a particular project. We also have limited "spare room" availability so if you want to go, but cannot afford a hotel, contact me offline ASAP. If I get an overwhelming response to this, I may need to change to bigger facilities. So really cheap early-bird registration has the added benefit of giving me a good early head count. Early-bird registration is just $60 bucks. You can SAVE TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS if you register early! I have invited every project that I could think of, but I know for a fact that FOSS in healthcare is much bigger than my meager contact list. If you work with or know of an open source project with serious impact in healthcare that might like to attend/present, please forward them this invitation! Here are the rules for project invitations: * You have to be actually using the software live to be considered for a project invitation. No disrespect to alpha projects, but our resources are limited and we have to favor mature projects. * Project leaders can get two free tickets to the conference, one for a guest and one for a speaker. The speaker should be ready to give a 10 minute summary talk on your project. * Please advertise this talk now on your own forums. The early-bird pricing, specifically for community members is only good for about a month. I have already gotten commitments to speak from people that I consider to be some of the top minds in FOSS healthcare. I can guarantee that if you are a Medical or IT professional you will get good talks on software that can make a difference in your world today. I am doing everything that I can think of to ensure that different projects will be able to cross-pollinate and grow. If you are not sure if you can go... it is worth $60 to reserve a spot... sign up today! -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Patient Portals and PHR's
Agreed. To paraphrase Stallman: The CCR/CCD support in Indivo would be much better if you were working on it. This is true no matter where Indivo is on CCR/CCD and not true of Google/Microsoft, no matter where they are on CCR/CCD. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Patient Portals and PHR's
Hi, We already have a very strong FOSS PHR project in Indivo http://www.indivohealth.org/ Indivo is FOSS, it is being massively deployed as part of Dossia http://www.dossia.org/ It is already basically the number 3 PHR available after Google Health and HealthVault. Also, Tolvens project has a PHR component. If we as a community are looking for something to "get behind" as far as PHRs go, this seems pretty obvious... Am I missing something? -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Community EMR project in the Mid West (US)
The two top solutions for patient portals that I know of are Tolven and Indivo. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Last day to comment
This is the last day to comment on the National Health IT Dialogue So far my post arguing for Open Source Health IT http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/insist-on-open-source is listed as one of the highest rated and most commented ideas on the site. The "rating" function on the site is a little obscure, and poorly implemented, you have to create a user name and then click on the stars in a way that is non-obvious. If you did not actually vote for my idea before please login and do so. Please also take the time to make an intelligent comment. So many of the comments are off-topic or just silly. If you have something to actually -say- about the concept of open source in healthcare, do it now. Also do not forget to do the same with Josephs post... you can find it here. http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/open-source-process-evidence-based-medicine-for-software-evolution Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] A National Health IT dialogue
I wanted everyone to be aware of the National Dialogue website that is opening for a few days to discuss Health IT. http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/info/about/ The site is a Digg-like collaboration to gather, comment on, and rate ideas. It is hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration. If you have an idea you would like to put forward regarding Health IT, now is the time, as the site will only be open for a few days. I have put forward my basic credo, "we should only be using FOSS in Health IT" here: http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/insist-on-open-source/ Please rate it and comment on it. I know many of you really agree with me, and some really do not. Either way, this will be a very public debate and it is a good chance for your voice to be heard. Of course this applies especially to those of you who agree with me!! ;) -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] FOSS for health in Malaysia
eaties. PCDOM or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold. The name "PCDOM" and "PrimaCare" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] This EULA does not grant you any rights to trademarks or service marks of PCDOM. 4. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services with the Software. 5. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that PCDOM may collect and use non-medical (technical) information gathered as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the Software. PCDOM may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies. Unless expressly approved by you via written consent, PCDOM will not disclose this information in a form that personally identifies you to third parties. 6. ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE/SERVICES. This EULA applies to updates, supplements, add-on components, or Internet-based services components, of the Software that PCDOM may provide to you or make available to you after the date you obtain your initial copy of the Software, unless they are accompanied by separate terms. PCDOM reserves the right to discontinue Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Software. 7. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, PCDOM may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Software and all of its component parts. 8. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED UNDER THE PCDOM PRIMACARE PROJECT "AS IS."ANY DATA DISCREPENCIES DUE OR ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE PCDOM DEVELOPMENT TEAM OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. WE STRONGLY DISCOURAGE AGAINST UNAUTHORISED MODIFICATIONS OF THE SOURCE CODE. 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which may be included with the Software) is the entire agreement between you and PCDOM relating to the Software and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Software or any other subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the terms of any PCDOM policies or programs for support services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control. If any provision of this EULA is held to be void, invalid, unenforceable or illegal, the other provisions shall continue in full force and effect. -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Open Source EMRs that export HL7 CDAs
Chris, The top open source EHR projects geared towards out-patient/ambulatory/small practice are ClearHealth, OpenMRS and Tolven. That's php, java and java. All of them are capable of outputting documents in XML, and could be roped into CDA compliance if it is not already. I would recommend using Mirth to do the HL7 work. If I were you I would get all three projects working in a lab environment, and then use the community forums for each project to see if you can get HL7 and CDA working. Does that help? -FT On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Chris Paton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > > > Does anyone know which Open Source EMRs (ideally for small practices) > are capable of exporting HL7 CDAs? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > Dr Chris Paton BM BS BMedSci > > Research Fellow, Health Informatics > > National Institute for Health Innovation > > Level 3, School of Population Health,Tamaki Campus > > The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland > > Phone: +64 (0) 9 3737599 ext 83383; Mobile: +64 9 (0) 21 613 403; Fax: > 3737503 > > http://www.health.auckland.ac.nz/nihi > <http://www.health.auckland.ac.nz/nihi> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Looking for Ruby developers
Hi, An open source project has asked me if I know anyone with Ruby/ Ruby on Rails experience along with some familiarity with clinical systems. If fit this description and you read this in the next few days... drop me a line and I will get you in touch. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] "Shunning" as a open source value?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/google_open_source_talk/ -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] billing test scripts
What does the "billing section" mean. If you mean for X12 compliance, I usually use http://www.edifecs.com/ They are pretty good... HTH, -FT On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Shams Islam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear all, > Sorry for this general question. > Does anyone have any test scripts to test the billing section of an EMR? > > Any help would be appreciated. > thanks > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Health of the Source
Hi, I pride myself about not only knowing whats going on, but having pretty good ideas about what the implications are. When I give talks at conferences, which is happening more and more frequently, I like to give juicy opinion rather than mere fact. My hope is that a "sports caster" type evaluation of the market is going to be more interesting to my listeners than a simple summary of projects. Recently I have decided to merge my summarize FOSS in medicine talk which I call "Health of the Source", with a blog post. So if you go here http://www.fredtrotter.com/2008/05/20/health-of-the-source/ you can actually see what I used instead of powerpoint. I want to be clear that I am picking winners, losers and telling what is interesting and different and why. If you have trouble keeping up with everything that is going on, then this would be a good place to start. But I know my audience, I would also like to be told how/where I am wrong. If you disagree, say so with comments. If your arguments are good, I will update the article with your opinion, either replacing or inline with my own. I know most of you do not have the bandwidth to check into this, but you aught to make sure that you are being mentioned if you should be and that I am saying good things if I should be saying good things about your work. Regards, -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Google Health
Google does not typically take help from outsiders that it does not seek out. They are a tad ivory tower that way. Indivo and Tolven are our top two PHR efforts. They will and do listen to us and we should focus our efforts there. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] FOSS PACS
I wanted to make clear to everyone that while I am certainly no expert, I am interested in PACS servers and RIS systems only here. I know that there are many good open source DICOM viewers. I am interested in the server side of things and preferably I am interested in a solution that meets the requirements that Joseph is talking about. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] FOSS PACS
Hi, Where are we on an open source PACS system? Do we have something that is reliable and has actually been deployed and integrated? Opinions and Bias welcome here -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: An inventor of disruptive technology looking for advice about open source
In Steves defense I see no reason why proprietary companies should not have to pay to use his patent. It makes sense to me that in the world of openess and freedom, everything should be open and free. While if a proprietary software vendor presumes to exert control of a clinician using a software license, then I see no reason at all that Steve should not exert control over said vendor. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] An inventor of disruptive technology looking for advice about open source
Stephen, You are the second person who has approached our community about using a hybrid patent/open source business approach. I had already decided to work with the first group, and your comment has urged me to move this higher on my priority list. I will try to communicate with you offlist regarding exactly how to move forward. You should know that I, and others within this community, will work with you only with great hesitation. Many in our community, including me think that generally, patents are immoral. We are unique in the FOSS community in that it really is a high-stakes moral game that we are playing. If Microsoft has patents on the Xbox. Who cares really? If they have a patent on HealthVault, then some life-saving idea that they have in there could be trapped for 20 years. This creates what I lovingly refer to as the " health software patent paradox" "The degree to which a medical software is innovative and useful, and is therefore patentable, is directly proportionate to degree to which it is immoral to pursue patenting" What if a car company created a new safety device that reduced car accident deaths as easily and cheaply as seatbelts do currently. Innovative? yes. Patentable? probably. A technology unethical to trap in the hand of one car company? Clearly. I cannot see any substantive HealthIT patent that does not fall into this moral quandry. However, I recognize that I am unlikely to convince you regarding this matter, and I also see that you are reaching out to us in a friendly manner. So if you will take my reluctant help, I would be glad to give it. First please read what I have already written on the subject of licensing medical software. Much of it may not apply to you. But it is useful context for you to have. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/sharing_medical_software_foss_licensing_in_medicine Second, from what I have seen on your blog you have some confusion about what open source means. You wrote there > Note that there are dozens of other open source licenses, > including those that prohibit derived work and free sharing. > Very complex indeed! This is not true. If a license does these things then it does not meet the Open Source definition. The issue is confusing, but not particularly complex. The OSI makes the definition. The OSI approves the licenses. If it does not meet the definition AND make the list, then it is not an open source license. A glance at your technology stack indicates that your patent involves using a thick-client spreadsheet as a front end to some sort of data network. Frankly, I seriously doubt that a patent that you got as recently as 1998 with a technology description that is as general as the one that your blog describes will not have substantial prior art available. Ergo, I doubt your patent is valid. Further, in the current FOSS community, we are aggressively pursing multiple AJAX interfaces, as well as really smart, XML based plumbing to move data around. Thankfully, these standards-based technologies are largely unpatentable. They work so well, that I doubt anyone here will bother to implement your technology. Feel free to convince me and others otherwise, but market speak like: "interact at the presentation level, which creates an interoperable platform for the simple, secure, fluid exchange of reports between disparate system architectures through the transmission of content stored in delimited files." This kind of broad, glowing descriptions sound marvelous, but mean so much (whatever you want them too) that they might as well mean nothing. If you could give me an example of something your technology does right now that is not found in the combined technology pool of VA Vista, OpenMRS, ClearHealth and Mirth, I would be very very surprised. I say that because I will try and help you, but I need to be sure that you understand that I am helping you because I think it is important that we, as the FOSS community, work with patent holders to arrange for a peaceful resolution to patent problems. I am not working with you because I am impressed by your technology. Perhaps I will be impressed later on, but I am certainly not impressed now. Given that, you should take a look at this page www.rosenlaw.com/IC-Business-Model.pdf Which outline an effort to create a "Patents, Free for Open Source everyone else pays" strategy. I am working with Larry Rosen now to see how best to apply this to a medical environment. Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Problems with NPI
If you are having issues with NPI you might take this survey which CMS will be given to CMS in a few days... http://surveys.hittransition.com/npi -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Creation of the Open eHealth Foundation
I meant "post something about it at LinuxMedNews." On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Fred Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I spent the last evening talking with Thomas here at HIMSS. They have > a very interesting technology strategy and they seem serious about > contributing. It remains to be seen if they can deliver on their > plans, but my first impression is that they are for-real. I will try > and cover their announcement today and post something about it at > HIMSS. > > Regards, > -FT > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:07 AM, tliebscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > today at HIMSS we are announcing the creation of the Open eHealth > > Foundation as a 501c3 non-profit corporation to speed up IT adoption > > for consumer-driven healthcare. > > The Open eHealth Framework focuses on model-driven application > > development for interoperabale healthcare solutions as well as > > providing basic building blocks for healthcare integration under an > > OSI approved license. > > We are using healthcare FOSS components for a while and are familiar > > with e.g. Mirth and Eclipse OHF. We want to talk to you as a community > > to figure out how we can best collaborate together. > > > > Thomas Liebscher | CTO > > R&D BasisTechnology > > Prokurist > > InterComponentWare AG | Industriestraße 41 | 69190 Walldorf (Baden) | > > Germany > > Tel.: +49 (0) 6227 385 114 | Fax: +49 (0) 6227 385 588 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.icw.de | www.lifesensor.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Creation of the Open eHealth Foundation
I spent the last evening talking with Thomas here at HIMSS. They have a very interesting technology strategy and they seem serious about contributing. It remains to be seen if they can deliver on their plans, but my first impression is that they are for-real. I will try and cover their announcement today and post something about it at HIMSS. Regards, -FT On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:07 AM, tliebscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > today at HIMSS we are announcing the creation of the Open eHealth > Foundation as a 501c3 non-profit corporation to speed up IT adoption > for consumer-driven healthcare. > The Open eHealth Framework focuses on model-driven application > development for interoperabale healthcare solutions as well as > providing basic building blocks for healthcare integration under an > OSI approved license. > We are using healthcare FOSS components for a while and are familiar > with e.g. Mirth and Eclipse OHF. We want to talk to you as a community > to figure out how we can best collaborate together. > > Thomas Liebscher | CTO > R&D BasisTechnology > Prokurist > InterComponentWare AG | Industriestraße 41 | 69190 Walldorf (Baden) | > Germany > Tel.: +49 (0) 6227 385 114 | Fax: +49 (0) 6227 385 588 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.icw.de | www.lifesensor.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] IF you are at HIMSS 08
Drop me a line and we will try to get a FOSS meetup going... -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
g himself or > herself from numerous issues. Conflict of interest is an important > concern for a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Again, I see your point. Still I am imaging that there will be very few instances where "the mirrormed project" or for that matter any one project would stand to benefit. I see more cases where we might do something that benefits "all of the php projects" or "all of the VistA projects" or "all of the interoperability projects" or just "all the projects". For instance, suppose we got a grant to "advance FOSS healthcare software generally" I would be inclined to allocate some of that money to each project specifically targeting a common weakness, like documentation. In another example, if we have a conference, I would hope to invite all of the FOSS projects to use that to host a community meeting. In those rare cases were it would be important to recuse myself personally from voting, I would not mind instead recusing MirrorMed from consideration. While I might be biased in favor of MirrorMed, I am the only one on either list who has an interest in that project. > > My purpose in responding is not to try to usurp your project. I agree > that the type of organization that you are proposing is needed by this > community. For this type of project to be successsful I believe that > transparenct and avoidance of conflict-of-interest charges are equally > important. agreed. I hope the above serves to clarify things. > > You have not answered one of my questions. Do you already have a > 501(c)(3) letter from the United States Internal Revenue Service? Sadly, we do not. Do you have that status? -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] HIMSS in Orlando
I will be going to HIMSS and I would like to arrange another FOSS meetup!! -FT On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Tim Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Is anyone on this list attending this conference? > http://www.himssconference.org/ > > It would be great to hear thoughts about Eric Schmidt's (Google CEO) > keynote and if any open source advocates have a press pass for the press > conference afterwards that would be very cool. Maybe they are about to > release news about their PHR? > > http://www.himssconference.org/education/keynoteSpeakers.aspx > > Cheers, > Tim > > > > > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > ** > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > ** > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Legal Matters
As we discuss FMSF and other techno-legal matters it would behove all of us to attend to the recently released Legal Issue Primer released by the Software Freedom Law Center. You have probably seen it go by on your blog-rolls but still. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
k at this problem in a different way. We need to have two organizations (I believe). One to support the community as whole that is made up of lots of different voices from different projects (maybe my way of handling that is not the right way), and one to support OpenEMR development specifically. The OpenEMR project does have a history of being democractic, which we want to emulate. How about you propose two of your board members to come be board members on the FMSF? That cross-pollination would allow us to sort out these complex issues over time, one way or another. I think it would be enough to ensure that our efforts were coordinated? -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] Re: Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
Sam, Obviously, I disagree with you on several points. > OSMS is exactly what you are proposing with this new organization. > The main difference is that Fred Trotter trusts Fred Trotter to do the > right thing but not the rest of us. That is an assumption. Perhaps I have other motivations, see below. > > Obviously, using your own non-conflict-of-interest policy, you do not > qualify for your own Board of Directors. I should hope that I am ideal for the Board of Directors. My current idea is not to include project owners as BoD members. I am no longer the project manager for ClearHealth, David Uhlman is. MirrorMed is 90% code-identical with ClearHealth and 100% compatible. As far as I am aware, I am the single largest contributer to the ClearHealth project besides ClearHealth Inc employees (who obviously contribute vastly more than I do). MirrorMed is my trademark for selling ClearHealth. It would also be my trademark for selling OpenEMR, FreeMED or UltimateEMR. The whole point of MirrorMed is to allow me to develop on my own when I need to, but to not create "yet-another-php-EHR-project". In fact that is where the name comes from... it is a "mirror" get it ;) The same is true of FreeB. I view the openemr community as the maintainers of FreeB v1.x ( the perl version). Again FreeB v2 the php version is completely based on the ClearHealth billing module. In all three cases, MirrorMed, FreeB v1 and FreeB v2, someone else is leading the projects. I am just a developer. In the past I have developed code for FreeMED and through FreeB I have contributed to several different projects. I have done VistA development (that should someday "real soon now" be made public) and I am currently working with Mirth. My participant as a developer on several projects and the fact that I continue to have business interests in Open Source medical software, should qualify me for a role like this, instead of disqualify me. Further, I have consistently demonstrated that I am interested in the movement rather than a particular project. Mirth will soon eclipse my work in this regard, but FreeB was the first substantial piece of medical software that was useful to several different projects. > > As for Open Source Medical Software (OSMS), the organization was > chartered to serve all free open source medical software projects. I > have offered previously in this forum to support any and all of the > existing FOSS medical software. I was mostly met with suspicion and > criticism, but the offer still stands. Honestly, I missed the public offer, but I am sure you made it just as you mention. However, please do not pretend that this has always been the position of your foundation. I specifically proposed to you, and your board that you take on the MirrorMed codebase as a second codebase to hold under your group besides OpenEMR. If you recall I was even willing to assign the trademark to your non-profit to make that happen. Here was the reply you sent me: > We had out board of directors meeting on Friday. The consensus is ( 3:1 > against a merger) that they still prefer working with the current > OpenEMR code base. The more experienced developers feel that fixing the > older code base is not going to be that hard. They prefer the > functionality that already exists with OpenEMR. I think the issue boils > down to the fact that that they prefer a different design philosophy > than what you are using with MirrorMed. So if the Open Source Medical Software was designed to "serve all open source medical software projects" rather than just OpenEMR, this decision is a little confusing. I certainly respect your decision to not work with MirrorMed, you should be able to do whatever you want. But you cannot not reject my proposal to work with a different codebase and then also claim to be project-neutral. I know for a fact that the charter of FreeMED Foundation also says that it also can support any Open Source medical software, but practically speaking the FreeMED Foundation is focused supporting the FreeMED project. You can tell because all of the people on the FreeMED Foundation BoD are "FreeMED" people. Just as your foundations board are entirely composed of "OpenEMR people". Hopefully, by having many different associations among the BoD members we can achieve a neutral board, if not the perception of neutral board members. I would be willing to discuss the possibility of re-purposing the Open Source Medical Software foundation to do what we had hoped to with the FMSF. However, just as the FMSF will have no ties with the MirrorMed project, the Open Source Medical Software foundation would have to sever its strong ties with OpenEMR. That would mean removing most of the OpenEMR people on your current board and replacing it from exactly the same kind of people that we are seeking for our board. M
Re: [openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
Rod wrote: > I'd have a very hard time being interested without (at least tentative) > answers to those questions up front. How can you not care if another > perfectly good organization is already dedicated to the same things? fair enough. Answers below: Tim wrote: > There is nothing wrong with this, it just appears to me that Fred is > proposing a project neutral organization. I could not have said it better. But remember that "project neutral" does not mean the same thing as "merit neutral". Just because a project has a FOSS license does not mean that the FMSF should blindly support it. Still I would hope to do things that will benefit projects like OpenEMR. There are also things that the project focused foundations might be able to accomplish that the FMSF might have trouble with, things like narrowing in on one license in order to indemnify and protect contributing developers. This is the reason that the Apache Foundation uses only the Apache License, doing that sort of thing with several licenses becomes intractable. (Thanks for that insight Ryan) We might refer to foundations that exist to push a particular solution or license as 'Apache-foundation-style' groups; the community obviously needs such organizations and the FMSF would hope to work with these kinds of organizations. Tim wrote: > In this case the only > organization I can think of that it would be in any way in competition > with is OSHCA. I believe that FMFS and OSHCA can be complimentary. That is our hope too. One important distinction is that FMSF will be US-Based and a 501c3. Obviously, having different vehicles for different projects could be advantageous. There are several projects that *I* hope to undertake that are impossible without 501c3 status, which is why we decided to start a new group, rather than work through the committees of an existing group, which would slow us down. It is already taking way too long to get this up and going. The other thing that we will be handling differently than OSCHA is the "conflict of interest" issue regarding the outside projects of board members. Instead of making a judgment about whether an individuals secondary interest is compatible with the foundation, we can include members who have potential conflicts by creating the non-voting group of Board of Advisors. The idea is to create a space for hybrid players; like Misys or eMds, where the fact that they are not "pure" FOSS is not a problem. Also we want to able to include people like Rod Roark, David Uhlman or VistA people or OpenMRS people who have very strong ties to particular projects, in a way that competing projects will have less of a problem with. Obviously, we can also move people back and forth between the voting BoD and the non-voting BoA, so if I ever take up the role of project manager again, I would just give up my vote, and continue participating. Again, this is how *I* think this should work, but *I* will not be making the decisions about exactly what we are trying to accomplish. Once the FMSF is formed it will take its own direction, and you can count on it being different than what I am envisioning. I just want to clarify what my personal intentions were and explain my own reasons for being involved. What I want to know from the community is what do *you* think the FMSF should do? I have seen no nominations or volunteers for BOD members yet? Do not be shy -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
[openhealth] Creating the Free Medical Software Foundation
Hello, We are starting a 501c3 non-profit foundation to advance FOSS in healthcare. Here is our "mission statement": To improve the quality of healthcare through the advancement of Free and Open Source Medical Software. The Free Medical Software Foundation will encourage the use of Free and Open Source software by sponsoring development, education and Health IT initiatives. So far this is a project that both I and Ignacio Valdes have committed to. In order to make the FMSF as transparent as possible, Ignacio and I will be taking public nominations for Board of Directors and Board of Advisers positions. We have already invited people we know we want to be involved in the BOD, and we will potentially pass on nominations without giving any reasons for doing so. However, we want the communities input even at this initial stage. For all BOD and BOA members, we have a preference for either technical expertise, or clinical expertise. We also strongly prefer 'do'ers to 'talk'ers. We like short meetings. BOD members: Must be committed to the FOSS health software movement as a whole, as opposed to being associated strongly with a particular project or company. We hope that the BOD members will be well-known community members who instantly command respect. BOD members will get a formal vote on the actions of FMSF. BOA members: Are committed to the advancement of a particular project or effort within the community. We will be inviting people who are associated with either proprietary and FOSS companies, but who are making a significant contribution to health FOSS in some fashion. BOA will not get a vote on the actions of FMSF. Now, I am sure many of you will wonder "What exactly should this organization do?" or "Is this organization in competition with organization X?" I have specific answers to none of those types of questions. Ignacio and I have several initiatives that are critically important to the community that do not work well without a non-profit behind them. We will be supporting and/or hosting conferences. We will pursing funding for the purposes of sponsoring development on important projects. Besides that, we want to have an organization that can be used to scratch our collective FOSS in healthcare itch. What else that will mean will depend in large part on who you suggest as BOD members. So, this is not an opportunity to discuss what the FMSF will be doing, as much as who gets to make that decision. In short, who does the community at large trust. Who represents our communities ideals and values? Who would therefore make a good BOD member? What projects are important enough that we should invite their community members specifically to the BOA? Feel free to nominate or volunteer now. Please give some detail on why you would make a good candidate. -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
