On Sunday I posted a blog suggesting the CeH letter to the Prime Minister was an unalloyed good.
I have learnt a lesson here. I had seen a range of circulated drafts but had not actually seen, and carefully reviewed, the final letter before posting.
This paragraph appeared late in the drafting and I did not notice it before I put the file up for downloading.
“We believe that the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) has shaped a coherent vision and roadmap and has defined several “Foundation Projects” that must be funded and implemented to provide a shared basis for success. The States and Territories are also progressively aligning with the NEHTA roadmap and its foundation projects. We also note growing support of the private sector; the Business Council of Australia has strongly supported action on e-health in their letter to you dated 21 October 2009, the content of which we endorse. Finally, there is widespread consumer acceptance of and desire for a health system transformed by e-health – an independent public opinion poll commissioned by NEHTA found that 82% of consumers say they would use an e-health record.”
For the record I totally support the CeH thrust in getting more attention on e-Health and supporting the funded implementation of the National E-Health Strategy.
I do not believe NEHTA has shaped a ‘coherent vision’ and I do not believe they understand what their role is in supporting health system reform and improvement. I have no idea just how many of the CeH members agree with this sentiment. As far as I can tell I was not asked but I could have missed it!
My view is that NEHTA is a dysfunctional disaster that has slowed e-Health progress in Australia a great deal – but all regular readers know that and the reasons why I feel this way.
I have posted earlier on the issue of NEHTA’s claim of total public support. See here:
http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-evidence-regarding-silliness-of.html
I am sorry I did not check more carefully before putting this final version up for download. Excluding that paragraph the letter is good – with it – not so!
Sorry again! Running a blog like this is a learning experience!
David.
2 comments:
Your apology will be noted and well appreciated by the Prime Minister's advisers. I think it odd and quite unnecessary for letters to the Prime Minister to be made public in this way. Frustration with lack of progress may be palpably on the verge of a volcanic explosion but putting politics aside for a moment 'publicly' circulated correspondence designed to exert pressure and achieve action more often than not will be counter productive.
The Prime Minister is the nation's leader and deserving of respect regardless of political leanings. Accepting that the letter was courteous and reasonable all that can be said has been said with the proviso that it would have been better had the letter not been made public. There are other more refined ways to reach the ear of the Prime Minister.
How could the last paragraph be approved by all the organisations listed? Was it in fact officially agreed by them? What a joke.
Who was responsible for the "additional" words? Can only assume consulting companies who are currently working for or trying to obtain work from NEHTA.
Post a Comment