Joseph may remember the first time I had to take my
previous EMR product (MUFFIN) through conformance
testing. It took months of planning, documentation,
test server and configuration, and then finally a week
of testing - basically going through point by point of
the system specification. I was
I understand Rod's point, and I believe that if you choose to restrict
your activities to a purely altruistic ideal, then what Rod talks about
and what Eric Rayomond talks about is just fine. But, I argue that at
any point you invest time into open source (as a user,developer, etc.)
it is
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??
It sounds like there is little consensus for having any special status for
open source software. Certainly not enough to warrant a group letter. Are
there any more thoughts
Will Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too agree. Certification is a matter of standards and quality. ther should
be no compromise. The FOSS once equally certified maybe able to make stroner
claims. However because of the collaborative/community type of development,
there could be a waver of
Business Readiness Rating™ - Home
Could HIS be included here as well?
NandA
Thomas Beale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Tim.Churches wrote:
Will Ross wrote:
Fred,
I oppose the creation of a separate open source certification
process. I think it compromises the opportunity for
Aren't we missing the larger issue? Proper certification of health
information systems is going to be expensive, and that is probably
unavoidable. Moeover, someone is going to have to bear the burden of
that cost. I'm not sure that this question should really be tied to the
certification model,
This is an interesting discussion. However we do have some decisions to
make.
1. Does the different nature free and open source medical software warrant
different consideration than proprietary models for CCHIT certification
pricing. (If a large number of people feel this way then we should draft
Rod Roark wrote:
The point is, open source (as in Free Software) is NOT a business
model. It's a method and end result of collaboration among users.
I make good money at it only because some of those users are willing
to pay me to do the techie work for them.
if someone is paying you
Thomas Beale wrote:
Rod Roark wrote:
The point is, open source (as in Free Software) is NOT a business
model. It's a method and end result of collaboration among users.
I make good money at it only because some of those users are willing
to pay me to do the techie work for
Before I contributed to the opinions raised I would like to point out
several things that my recent investigations have pointed out. First, the
proposed fees are straw man fees CCHIT wants feedback on these prices.
They are not at all set in stone.
They also have some mechanisms in place to
On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:44 PM, Rod Roark wrote:
I repeat: NOBODY will pay thousands for certification of Free
Software. They will use it because they already believe in it.
Rod,
I have been following the CCHIT process. I do not consider CCHIT to
be biased against open source. I think
Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
On Mar 25, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
and...at the risk of stating the obvious there should be some
mechanism for evaluating the certification authority and the
criteria...
Sadly, I don't know how many people are even thinking in those
On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:01 PM, Tim.Churches wrote:
Certainly formal quality assurance mechanisms for health-related
software should be used where possible and reasonable, but it must
also
be remembered that the practice of medicine itself is, at worst,
guided
by a tradition of what seems
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based
system.
Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to
consider
group action in the issue.
The first issue is pricing. It will cost a $25,000 to $35,000 one-time
fee
to perform the test. After
This is a US initiative...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based
system.
Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to
consider
group action in the issue.
The first issue is pricing. It will cost
[I hope you don't mind if I copy this to Hardhats. I think it is a
topic of interest to both communities.]
I have mixed feelings here. It seems completely reasonable to want to
have an accreditation/certification process for health information
systems (though the jurisdiction issue is certainly a
You are right we should not receive a by we do need to make concrete
suggestions as to how the same organization can accomplish open source
evaluations...
Here are the suggestions from emrupdate.com
emrupdate
1. Markedly decrease your up-front fees and eliminate the percent
royalties
I'd prefer to assume that the CCHIT pricing model is simply biased
toward software companies that can produce a viable product. And by
that I mean a software product that stimulates revenue for a company at
some point - which in our case is not through the sale of software licenses.
Nothing
Rod Roark wrote:
This is equivalent to ignoring the practical issues that Fred raised.
I disagree. The practical issues Fred raised are real concerns, but the
software companies we're competing against throw a *lot* of money into
validation and certification - especially HIPAA compliance (in
Fred Trotter wrote:
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system.
Fred, you don't think that the CCHIT pricing is biased against software
released under other types of free, open source licenses?
Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to
20 matches
Mail list logo