|
|
|
|
|
by fitandfunction
4855 days ago
|
|
Why do you think past efforts haven't "panned out" yet? Is it: a) they're working on it, but just not there yet b) the major EHR do everything in their power to delay progress by providing token access c) it's actually very hard to sync medical records across so many different standards / systems d) not enough patient / doctor demand / use-cases, i.e. people don't transfer as much as we think they do, diluting the value of inter-operability ? or something else? all of the above? This area of HIT fascinates me because I hypothesize that it's a necessary precursor to reform. But, knowing little about the space, I'm not sure where to start my investigation. |
|
In San Francisco, Kaiser could electronically share patient data with every other system running Epic with very little technical work and price. We're talking hours of work here. That would let them share data with UCSF, PCMH and every other Epic site.
They don't. Why not? It's because sharing patient data makes it easy to poach patients, and that's bad for business. There are similar situations in other cities too.
I don't blame them because the government hasn't made data exchange required yet. It's coming, with some of the requirements for Meaningful Use Stage 2 & 3 and the work done by the S&I framework. APIs will help too, because HL7 is confusing to newcomers and costs money. Vendors could make this easier too, but it's not like Epic or Cerner could compel anyone to share patient data.
I have a more in depth answer about this topic here: http://www.quora.com/Electronic-Health-and-Medical-Records/W...