Comments on: Readers Write 9/3/08 http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/ Healthcare IT News and Opinion Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:56:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: BigJ http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/comment-page-1/#comment-2083 BigJ Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:07:51 +0000 http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/#comment-2083 This conversation is a joke. The government wants to standardize a small piece of healthcare that one vendor or possibly two may care about based on winning the governments business at some point. So instead of developing great systems, lets worry about interfacing to government specs. Give me a break, work on standardizing interfaces in general without Z segments throughout the organizations. What a joke and a fairly Democratic thing to do..... This conversation is a joke. The government wants to standardize a small piece of healthcare that one vendor or possibly two may care about based on winning the governments business at some point. So instead of developing great systems, lets worry about interfacing to government specs. Give me a break, work on standardizing interfaces in general without Z segments throughout the organizations. What a joke and a fairly Democratic thing to do…..

]]> By: Al Borges, MD http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/comment-page-1/#comment-2082 Al Borges, MD Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:23:33 +0000 http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/#comment-2082 Everytime I see "EHRVA" involved in setting standards, I think of CCHIT and e-prescribing, which are standards that were made not to forward medicine but to line the pockets of the "enterprise" EMR vendors that control this group. This group was formed to heavily lobby Congress and to force HIT onto all physicians in a manner in which they are being forced to use these costly CCHIT-certified "EHR" systems for very little payback. Whatever happened to the old venerable ODBC connection that came free with MS Office? It was free, easy to set up, and completely functional. Another standard not associated with EHRVA, and FREE, was CMS/Medicare's "National Standard Format" that for years was the way that any EMR could log in and bill Medicare. Of course, EHRVA wouldn't profit at all from intiatives such as these, so they don't want to upgrade and promote softwares such as these. If I were a lab I wouldn't sign on until we know more about: 1) costs 2) true interoperability 3) ease of use. By reading the above article, ELINCS fails in # 3 with the lab entities that have to use it, and until that's fixed, it'll be another standard that will fail. Everytime I see “EHRVA” involved in setting standards, I think of CCHIT and e-prescribing, which are standards that were made not to forward medicine but to line the pockets of the “enterprise” EMR vendors that control this group. This group was formed to heavily lobby Congress and to force HIT onto all physicians in a manner in which they are being forced to use these costly CCHIT-certified “EHR” systems for very little payback.

Whatever happened to the old venerable ODBC connection that came free with MS Office? It was free, easy to set up, and completely functional. Another standard not associated with EHRVA, and FREE, was CMS/Medicare’s “National Standard Format” that for years was the way that any EMR could log in and bill Medicare. Of course, EHRVA wouldn’t profit at all from intiatives such as these, so they don’t want to upgrade and promote softwares such as these.

If I were a lab I wouldn’t sign on until we know more about:

1) costs
2) true interoperability
3) ease of use.

By reading the above article, ELINCS fails in # 3 with the lab entities that have to use it, and until that’s fixed, it’ll be another standard that will fail.

]]> By: leyden http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/comment-page-1/#comment-2081 leyden Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:01:54 +0000 http://histalk2.com/2008/09/03/readers-write-9308/#comment-2081 <i> Interoperability Spec #1 from the federal HIT standards group is lab. This standard is ‘recognized’ by the government</i> Ok lets take a look. Hmm, thats a lot of analysis and uses case but I am still missing the semantic interoperability (a red herring if there ever was one). Here is my summary of the first two specs (magazines?) Specification: <b>Electronic Health Record Laboratory Results Reporting</b> Distilled Detail: <b>Please use HL7</b> Specification: <b>HITSP View Laboratory Results from a Web Application Transaction</b> Distilled Detail: <b>Please use HTTPS</b> I think I will wait until our hospital is forced to use them... or the next administration changes them. Interoperability Spec #1 from the federal HIT standards group is lab. This standard is ‘recognized’ by the government

Ok lets take a look. Hmm, thats a lot of analysis and uses case but I am still missing the semantic interoperability (a red herring if there ever was one).

Here is my summary of the first two specs (magazines?)

Specification: Electronic Health Record Laboratory Results Reporting

Distilled Detail: Please use HL7

Specification: HITSP View Laboratory Results from a Web Application Transaction

Distilled Detail: Please use HTTPS

I think I will wait until our hospital is forced to use them… or the next administration changes them.

]]>