Comments on: News 6/4/08

By: none

none — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:15:41 +0000

Too bad Neil doesn’t reward his employees.

By: It's Not Easy Being Green

It's Not Easy Being Green — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:06:27 +0000

Don’t feel bad about not making the top 100 ‘whatever it was supposed to be’ list. It was laughable at best. Nancy Pelosi? George W. Bush? What about A. Neil Pappalardo whose lifetime investment in healthcare IT currently runs approximately 20% of all hospitals in the US and Canada? (Not including those that run MUMPS) That’s real power!

By: Lodewijk Bos

Lodewijk Bos — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:46:55 +0000

Not another acronym, please. CEMHR. BTW will there also be a CEMuHR? (ie the one on medical un-health). I thought after the introduction in the NEJM of the PCHR we had reached the acro limit, but apparently not.

In my view, an EHR should be a repository of all health and care related aspects, including observations from nurses, homecare providers, physiotherapists, etc., as well as over-the-counter-drug use and personal and lifestyle observation from the patient himself. Only then it can serve its purpose. And only then it will become one of the main tools in making care as well as cure more effective, also cost-wise. This repository will effectively be (partly) a collection of links. (see also here: http://blog.icmcc.org/?p=1320)

BTW in the whole discussion I get the impression that the world exists of the US only. Still, there are a couple of people more around, who also have records. It would be nice to have a kind of record that can be used when traveling, in both directions. Also for the long term view, secondary use of data and stuff like that, it would be handy if we would use the same standards and coding worldwide.

By: Google/MS Watcher

Google/MS Watcher — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:47:39 +0000

If you let EMR Vendors openly advertise from a search feature, even if it didn’t read directly on the patient medical record and only advertised based on what the patient typed in to a search field, every EMR Vendor would offer a “free PHR”.

And yes, P2P would allow a patient to move their records between any health system they wanted and / or keep them in sync.

Funny how everyone falls for the slight of the Google/MS hand on this one.

Epic (and probably others) are touting a non tethered component of their PHR as well. They refer to it as Lucy in the sky. They are talking / showing ??? that it will allow patients to self direct record transfers. And, something binding multiple PHRs is nearing a live date.

Anyone have insights into what other vendors are offering on this path?