Wednesday, July 28, 2010

My Response To The E-Health Central Blogger.

David More July 28, 2010 at 10:23 pm

“Anyone who knows anything at all about the system would be aware that both those claims are complete balderdash.

But over on his I Hate NEHTA blog, David More gets out his own egg-beater, and under the laborious heading “It Does Not Seem To Be Going Very well. NEHTA’s HI Service Seems To Be Stalled and May Not Be Safe” declares “What is new here is that direct from the ‘horse’s mouth’ we are hearing of a serious fracture between the Medical Software Industry and NEHTA. No doubt there will be all sorts of denial and spin put on this report and I can assure you – knowing those involved – that they would not have made these comments to the Australian unless the levels of unhappiness were pretty extreme.”


I don’t hate NEHTA, I just would like some real delivery of what is promised. Also no-one pays me. I actually do this because I care what happens the the Australian Health System and the infrastructure it needs.

In the light of the recent comments on your blog are you prepared to withdraw the remarks made about Karen Dearne and myself – or do we need to let the court of public opinion expose you for what you seem to be?

At this point graceful withdrawal looks pretty good!

What you really should do is just send NEHTA’s money back and then research the issue sufficiently deeply to be able to form a serious independent view on all this.

Remember I am both a medical graduate and a PhD who has spent since 1987 in the e-Health space. I know what I am talking about, largely, do you? I know I am not anywhere near infallible but I have spent a long time giving this honest thought – and no one has paid me a cent for this work – can you grasp it might just be that as both the Boston Consulting Group and Deloittes have said – serious change at NEHTA is needed?


This is all posted here:

Frankly until the level of personal invective and rudeness disappears this is all I have to say.



Anonymous said...

Well spoken David. Your blog is excellent. I respect your unpaid opinion, and I know and trust your experience in e-health. I respect your right to have opinions and I read them knowing your context. It would be ever so boring otherwise. If Charles doesn't like it he can go boil his bottom.

Anonymous said...

The more I read of what Charles Wright has to say the clearer it becomes that Wright is wrong more often than not. He may be a journalist and he may be paid by NeHTA as some have alleged. I know nought about that. What I sense however is that he knows little about healthIT. If I am wrong I hope he will forgive me for making such an assumption.

On the other hand Dr More does have extensive experience and deep knowledge in the field of healthIT. Dr More may be frustrated by developments or lack of them and the enormous expenditure and perceived waste of public funds with nothing that is demonstrably practical and of use to anyone being delivered to-date. All we have seen for many many years is horizons and deadlines being repeatedly shifted further and further into the distant future and no accountability by those with the authority and power to question this appalling state of affairs.

Dr More is not alone. The lead author of the National eHealth Strategy, Adam Powick, has also expressed his views and his disappointment on numerous occasions at the lack of progress. The combined expertise and competence of Moore and Powick far outweighs whatever Charles Wright can bring to bear.

Further, in my view Karen Dearne has researched and reported diligently, deeply, and accurately on ehealth in all its dimensions for almost a decade. She has demonstrated herself to be perhaps the best healthIT journalist this nation has seen in the last 20 or more years. I admire and respect her work. I have found it to be consistently accurate, fair and balanced, albeit more frequently than not embarrassing to the bureaucracy because it is so pointedly illuminating. Without her work and that of David More's, Adam Powick's and many others who have chosen to remain nameless but who have contributed so constructively to the debate there would be no transparency and there would be even less accountability than there is today, even though today it is almost non-existent.