headers
David Forslund | 6 Jan 18:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: US Government declares twenty Health IT Standards.

As I said in my earlier email, there is nothing new in this 
"announcement".  I'm not sure why the Bush administration is brought up 
in this context other than that this effort part of a large e-government 
initiative going on for a number of years .  This is mostly work by the 
CHI that has been going on for quite awhile (since 2001) in an effort to 
help guide interoperability in US health care and to coordinate 
government efforts in this area.   All this is clearly stated in the 
Federal Register article.   These 20 standards have been recommended 
since 2004 and has been part of a very deliberative process with 
standards bodies and industry.  I've suggested some other areas that CHI 
should look at but they seem reluctant to take my suggestions (should I 
say my ideas are irrelevant?).

Dave
J. Antas wrote:
> Ignacio Valdes wrote:
>> Hi J, the link to the doc on your website seems to not do anything. 
>> This is not a comment on the federal government :-)
>
> Well, it was unintentional.
> It seems that the US Gov. does not like to be linked to. :-)
>
> Thanks for the warning, the final lines of that message have been 
> changed to:
>   "The list may be freely downloaded from the US Gov. Printing Office.
> (The e-HealthExpert.org members will have to log into the 
> e-HealthExpert.org site to be able to download a copy by following the 
> "attachment"/"fr23de05-78.pdf" link presented bellow these lines.)"
>
> While we are at it and because English is not our mother language, are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
J. Antas | 6 Jan 21:47
Favicon

Re: US Government declares twenty Health IT Standards.

David Forslund wrote:
> As I said in my earlier email, there is nothing new in this 
> "announcement".  I'm not sure why the Bush administration is brought up 
> in this context other than that this effort part of a large e-government 
> initiative going on for a number of years .

> ... I've suggested some other areas that CHI 
> should look at but they seem reluctant to take my suggestions (should I 
> say my ideas are irrelevant?).

  I do not know. Aren't you the author of "OpenEMed"?
  That "thing" even has a "BSD License". Humm, a free/open source 
license, one of those things menacing the western civilization... 
arghh!!   :-)

  The problem of the really Open Standards in Healthcare is that 
Healthcare is already the 2nd largest legitimate business in the world. 
And it is expected to grow even bigger.

  The US Gov. budget for healthcare alone, is already bigger than whole 
country budgets of certain European countries like the UK!

  But despite all that expenditure, in certain aspects the US social 
security policy and even the public healthcare network are still medieval.

  Despite all that technological wizardry and babble, the US still have 
areas were they linger in the dark ages. Two examples:
a) It seems that up until this year they still missed old technologies 
of the 70's, like generalized bar code marking of the pharmaceutical 
products.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Forslund | 6 Jan 22:12
Picon
Favicon

Re: US Government declares twenty Health IT Standards.

J. Antas wrote:
> David Forslund wrote:
>> As I said in my earlier email, there is nothing new in this 
>> "announcement".  I'm not sure why the Bush administration is brought 
>> up in this context other than that this effort part of a large 
>> e-government initiative going on for a number of years .
>
>> ... I've suggested some other areas that CHI should look at but they 
>> seem reluctant to take my suggestions (should I say my ideas are 
>> irrelevant?).
>
>  I do not know. Aren't you the author of "OpenEMed"?
yes.
>  That "thing" even has a "BSD License". Humm, a free/open source 
> license, one of those things menacing the western civilization... 
> arghh!!   :-)
>
>  The problem of the really Open Standards in Healthcare is that 
> Healthcare is already the 2nd largest legitimate business in the 
> world. And it is expected to grow even bigger.
>
>  The US Gov. budget for healthcare alone, is already bigger than whole 
> country budgets of certain European countries like the UK!
>
>  But despite all that expenditure, in certain aspects the US social 
> security policy and even the public healthcare network are still 
> medieval.
I agree.  Open Standards have been considered the enemy of many 
companies, not just those in the US.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ignacio Valdes | 6 Jan 22:09
Picon

Re: US Government declares twenty Health IT Standards.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:47:09 +0000
  "J. Antas" <antas@...> wrote:
> David Forslund wrote:
> b) It seems that only less then 30% of all doctors are board 
>certified doctors by the national medical association. In almost all 
>the other western countries there is a single national medical 
>association that certifies all of the doctors. For the lawyers there 
>is a bar association, for the doctors, well... there are states where 
>the certification authority is the state governor.
> 

Untrue in the sense that it is only the governor. All physicians must 
pass a national standard exam, the United States Medical Licensing 
Examination (USMLE) Step 3 (a rigorous examination, I assure you) in 
order to only be eligible for licensure by a state. The states then 
require a remarkable amount of paperwork mostly proving that you are 
who you say you are and may thrown their own exam in as well like a 
medical jurisprudence exam for the state. I suppose it is possible 
that the final certification authority is a state governor (it is the 
state board of medical examiners in my state) but there are a 
remarkable number of examinations and checks that are done before it 
gets to the governor.

-- IV
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Forslund | 7 Jan 00:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: US Government declares twenty Health IT Standards.

Just to clarify this email.  I didn't write b) below; J. Antas did.

Dave
Ignacio Valdes wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:47:09 +0000
>  "J. Antas" <antas@...> wrote:
>> David Forslund wrote:
>> b) It seems that only less then 30% of all doctors are board 
>> certified doctors by the national medical association. In almost all 
>> the other western countries there is a single national medical 
>> association that certifies all of the doctors. For the lawyers there 
>> is a bar association, for the doctors, well... there are states where 
>> the certification authority is the state governor.
>>
>
> Untrue in the sense that it is only the governor. All physicians must 
> pass a national standard exam, the United States Medical Licensing 
> Examination (USMLE) Step 3 (a rigorous examination, I assure you) in 
> order to only be eligible for licensure by a state. The states then 
> require a remarkable amount of paperwork mostly proving that you are 
> who you say you are and may thrown their own exam in as well like a 
> medical jurisprudence exam for the state. I suppose it is possible 
> that the final certification authority is a state governor (it is the 
> state board of medical examiners in my state) but there are a 
> remarkable number of examinations and checks that are done before it 
> gets to the governor.
>
> -- IV
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane