The Senate has outdone itself with the prompt posting of the Submissions.
The Submissions are found here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/healthcare_identifier/submissions.htm
I am sure more will be added as the closing time is at the end of today (March, 5, 2010)
I note the AMA is also a little worried about implementation issues:
On Page 1 they say:
“Our submission will address the issues the Committee is specifically considering:
• privacy safeguards in the Bill;
• operation of the Healthcare Identifier Service, including access to the identifier; and
• relationship to national e-health agenda and electronic health records
Our comments on these issues largely relate to concerns about implementation, and are not reasons for the Bills not to be passed. We encourage the Committee to consider making recommendations in respect of the practical implementation of healthcare identifiers in the health care setting, to ensure the objectives of the Bills can be met.”
Submission Number 8.
The Law Council is also quite grumpy most of its earlier suggestions have just been ignored!
Enjoy the browse.
David.
Postscript. 8.00 pm
As as the time of this edit there are 39 submissions posted.
The worry is that only a few recognise how badly this may turn out with the quality of implementation from NEHTA / Medicare Aust. we have seen so far.
I would be very alarmed if I was an ordinary citizen!
D.
4 comments:
Well, the Australian Democrats conclude with a 'reasonable' request which any 'reasonable' person would agree with.
There is nothing to be lost by abiding with the Australian democrats request which is: "We ask that you address all privacy, security, information, records and function creep concerns before proceeding with the Healthcare Identifiers Bill 2010 and Healthcare Identifiers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010".
The operative words are 'before proceeding with'.
We are much closer than ever before in getting this fundamental and vitally important issue resolved. Australia will be the poorer if we do not get it right. If the Bill proceeds before we get it right the opportunity to do will be lost forever. The Senate's role is to protect the peoples interest.
Let us hope the Senate is made up of 'reasonable' people.
Thanks for the link.
I read the MSIA's submission first, because its members are the people who will have to make the new identifers work, and therefore the MSIA is likely to have the most practical view. The MSIA's submission is commendably short and written in good plain English that anybody can understand.
Yes, the MSIA submission is clear and concise. Providing in-principle support for the development and implementation of unique health identifiers is a reasonable position to hold.
The MSIA point to a number of areas which must be attended to before UHIs are adopted. If I interpret their position correctly they are advocating that the Bill be passed but that before UHIs are implemented the MSIAs areas of concern should first be addressed.
The facts of life are that if the areas of concern are not addressed before the Bill is passed - they will never be adequately addressed, instead they will be skimmed over in the rush to get the UHIs implemented.
Is the MSIA and its members prepared to accept that situation? We should hope not.
Saturday, March 06, 2010 3:33:00 PM asks "Is the MSIA and its members prepared to accept that situation?"
The fact that the MSIA's membership is made up of software developers should give you the answer. If the Bill is passed it will create a great deal more development work. Therefore the MSIA membership at large want the Bill passed. They will fight the battle of who (Government, NEHTA, Medicare, who) pays for the development work when the time comes. Then they will bleat "we can't afford it", "the business case does not add up", "Government should pay or subsidize our development work", etc, etc, etc.
In short the MSIA would like the big issues resolved before the Bill is passed, but on the other hand it would like the Bill passed pronto to open new development horizons. This is a pretty shoddy situation to let stand in its present form.
To be relevant and maintain any semblance of credibility the MSIA needs to make its position unambiguously clear. Either they agree with your position David or they do not. There is no half-way house on this issue.
Post a Comment