Quote Of The Year

Timeless Quotes - Sadly The Late Paul Shetler - "Its not Your Health Record it's a Government Record Of Your Health Information"


H. L. Mencken - "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Saturday, April 09, 2011

The United States Appoints a New Health IT Leader.

The following was announced overnight.

Mostashari Gets ONC Top Job

HDM Breaking News, April 8, 2011

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has named Farzad Mostashari, M.D., as the new national coordinator for health information technology. The appointment is effective on April 8. He succeeds David Blumenthal, M.D.

Mostashari was a strong contender for the position, since he has served as deputy national coordinator. He joined ONC in July 2009 after a stint as an assistant commissioner in the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and overseeing adoption of information technology by providers in underserved communities.

More here:


It is a real pity Australia has not sorted out the governance of E-Health at a national level and not appointed some capable person to lead an appropriately skilled organisation to do E-Health properly.

Dream on!



Hon said...

The biggest farce with this government is the proposed cut in funding to the NHMRC from 800 million to 400 million over 3 years while we are spending nearly 400 million on an unproven and overly promised PCEHR.

Julia Gillard and her advisors really need to get their priorities straight!

Anonymous said...

I doubt any reasonable intelligent person would disagree with you about the impending NHMRC cuts.

There is a fundamental difference however between the 400 million NHMRC and the PCEHR funding.

The NHMRC has a long credible history of supporting medical research in the conduct of conducting experiments which generate life saving results and major advances to medical knowledge contributing to the national prowess of global significance.

The PCEHR is also an experiment being undertaken across 9 unrelated projects, all described as playpens by the funding authority, and each being undertaken by a disparate bunch of technology parties with no proven track record, no clear objectives, no defined outcomes or milestones, no cohesion and no governance structure.

If the NHMRC does not take up the cudgel and fight this disgraceful profligacy and wastage of public funds the Australian medical research community will pay a very high price as it is guillotined down the middle, whilst the National eHealth Transition Authority and DOHA continue trying to justify a decade of incompetence in eHealth by throwing more good money after bad in the hope some good might come of it despite the repeated calls by many ehealth experts to call a halt and review this whole miserable mess before going any further.

Anonymous said...

We'll see if the new ONC head pays significant attention to health IT safety, as his predecssor did not seem to think there was cause for concern.

By the way:

I want to thank Australians for serving as a test bed and as guinea pigs for software development and testing of our American health IT systems, such as in Jon Patrick's analyses.

You might not feel the same way about your government's decisions to turn you into guinea pigs, however.

In that case, an American-style solution is my suggestion: litigation. (We love it here!)

The NSW government should sue.

Some reasons:

- Seller knew or should have known of defects and unsuitability to task
- Seller lack of responsiveness


Anonymous said...

This must be the most flagrant example of Post Modernism around. Just what are the qualifications and experience of the people making the decisions on the PCEHR?? The NHMRC research grants are hard won and while I am sure the assessment process is less than perfect it at least tries to do it on merit and the resulting work is published and the research plans are peer reviewed.
In contrast the eHealth agenda is decided my faceless men, or maybe faceless women, who would know? There is clearly no science involved as they have chosen the least proven path to success and kept their plans very secret. Why would you keep the plans for a half billion in public expenditure secret unless you were afraid of peer review?
This is a farce and a slap in the face for all the people spending years of their life trying to solve the eHealth puzzle using such out of fashion techniques as the application of computer science, peer reviewed publications and clinical trials. The majority of people with any significant eHealth experience are shaking their heads in disbelief and disgust, although many are worried about their future as the funding for eHealth other than the PCEHR has been quietly turned off. It’s the only game in town and it’s a lose-lose scenario for the industry, the public and also the politicians. The politicians don’t seem to get this yet, but at some point there will be a day of reckoning and it’s not going to look pretty!! This will set eHealth back years, not that its actually progressed at all under NEHTA!! It’s almost time for open revolt. Anyone have an e-Pitchfork handy?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "technology parties with no proven track record"

Many of the technology partners do have an extensive track record of developing and deploying health solutions in Australia! We have even innovated.

Anonymous said...

And many more of the 2nd wave do NOT have a proven track record. This is the least transparent, least defensible set of outcomes for a competitive process in years. And many folks inside NEHTA know this, and know that the people leading the selection process were not the 'A' team, and are just careerists who have survived within the organisation, independent of genuine e-health credentials. No one will say so publicly. Scandal. Waste. A shame.

Anonymous said...

This is an important point, just what eHealth credentials does NEHTA have? Can anyone point to a specification or piece of software that NEHTA are responsible for that is out there and working in the real world? They have "introduced" SNOMED-CT but have done nothing to assist with its use. They have spend a lot of money on the Australian Medicines Terminology (AMT) but its hardly a success or in use. AMT is not useful for decision support, but of course decision support is not in the work plan and is "out of scope" Oh Dear, a national eHealth program that does not have decision support in scope!!! Looks like we also have "Terminal Decline" in eHealth as well as our hospitals.