3 ms·
> The medical information systems vendors are right up there with health insurance companies in terms of their investment in ensuring patient deaths. Ensuring.
by all2 2y ago
> The medical information systems vendors are right up there with health insurance companies in terms of their investment in ensuring patient deaths. Ensuring. With an E.
Can you expand on this?
- righthand 2y agoMedical information system vendors only care about making a profit, not implementing actual solutions. The discrepancies between systems can lead to bad information which can cost people their life.
- ethbr1 2y agoAs an analogy, imagine if the consequence of Oracle doing Oracle-as-usual things was worse medical outcomes. But they did them anyway for profit. That's basically medical information system vendors. The fact that the US hasn't pushed open source EMRs through CMS is insane. It's literally the perfect problem for an open solution.
- caboteria 2y agoIt's worse than that. VistA is a world-class open source EMR that the VA has been trying to kill for decades.
- nradov 2y agoVistA was useful in it's time but it's hardly world class anymore. There were fundamental problems with the platform stack and data model which made it effectively impossible to keep moving forward.
- prepend 2y agoI love open source EMRs, but has any major country adopted open source EMRs? I know OpenMRS exists but is mainly used within developing nations. The US has Vista, made by VA, and it is a beast and no one really wants to use it.
- jampekka 2y agoIf I understand correctly, Estonia made their own EMR/EHR from scratch. The government produced (and commissioned?) software is all open source. https://koodivaramu.eesti.ee/explore https://koodivaramu.eesti.ee/explore EMR software seems like something that shouldn't be that hard. It's fundamentally a CRUD. Sure, there's a lot of legacy to interface with, but medical software seems like a deeply dysfunctional and probably corrupt industry.
- prepend 2y agoIt’s a famous “should be easy” use case. I think this is wrong only because no one does it.
- jampekka 2y agoI'm sure there's a lot of work, but hundreds of millions per deployment is not justifiable. The Finnish EPIC deployment has cost almost a billion euros. Estonia's from-scratch system was reportedly about 10 million euros.
- nradov 2y agoIt wouldn't be appropriate for the federal government to push any particular product. They have certified open source EHRs. It's not at all clear that increased adoption of those would improve patient outcomes. https://chpl.healthit.gov/#/search https://chpl.healthit.gov/#/search
- harvey9 2y agoSince Oracle bought Cerner a few years ago, no imagination needed. Sadly, since Cerner has lots of good people who want to make good products.
- delfinom 2y ago>The fact that the US hasn't pushed open source EMRs through CMS is insane. It's literally the perfect problem for an open solution. It's not insane, it's because the US is an oligarchy. And it's about to go even more oligarchy on steroids in the next year.
- prepend 2y agoWhat explains most other democracies not doing it? Is Sweden an oligarchy, too? Or France? Etc etc