This blog is totally independent, unpaid and has only three major objectives.
The first is to inform readers of news and happenings in the e-Health domain, both here in Australia and world-wide.
The second is to provide commentary on e-Health in Australia and to foster improvement where I can.
The third is to encourage discussion of the matters raised in the blog so hopefully readers can get a balanced view of what is really happening and what successes are being achieved.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Anyone Hearing About Senior Staff Changes At NEHTA? Just Wondered.
1. Where will those "leaving" go to and what "influences" will they have on incoming staff if they are employed in the e-health industry? 2. Who will replace them because the new people need to be "selected"? Who are the "selectors"? 3. Will the new board have "ears" or require "hearing aids" for e-health?
The Board have seen what a disaster this whole exercise has been for quite a few years now. They have not woken up - they have always been awake; just too inept to know what to do to fix the problem.
What they have just discovered is that they can now dump the whole shebang back on he Feds under the premise that the States have no more money to put into the NEHTA dream because the Feds have been cutting the States budgets. The Feds are the ones to blame.
As for the Senior Execs getting out - they know this is the end game it's only a matter of how big the parachute and when can I jump to maximize my final payout.
We have done a great job and worked very hard for a modest remuneration. Now that we are being forced to leave by circumstances beyond our control it is only right and proper that we be fully compensated in our final payout to make up for the relatively low remuneration we have received over many years in leading the dysfunctional organisation we inherited whilst delivering the first highly functional national ehealth system to the Australian taxpayer. An achievement which has eluded Britain, Canada and the USA. We have much to be proud of for which we should be fully compensated.
Dear 3/02/2013 10:00:00 AM you have to understand that when we are so close (perhaps two years max) to finishing the job which no-one else has been able to do, and now to find ourselves being prematurely terminated it is not unreasonable to expect to be compensated for the two years we should have been able to work plus pain and suffering - say current package x 4 give or take a bit.
"... we are so close (perhaps two years max) to finishing the job which no-one else has been able to do ..."
1. If you are being sarcastic, I've nothing to add.
2. If you are serious, then you haven't been listening. The PCEHR is fundamentally flawed. It has been implemented as an IT system not part of a health information system.
It's rather like building a house with the wrong floor plan and in the wrong place. It may or may not have been built well, but it is still the wrong house in the wrong place.
The PCEHR is the wrong solution, mainly because the real problems have not been defined or resolved, neither have the new problems that are created by implementing a PCEHR been identified and resolved.
Assuming you are serious, would you be prepared to take the money you asked for but contract to pay back 4x what you receive if the PCEHR fails on some rather simple measures?
It's an easy question. Of course you would say yes, because
a) defining some "rather simple measures" is actually difficult and
b) you can always blame someone else.
Just like the current situation.
IMHO, the one word that describes this whole sorry affair is "hubris"
Assuming you are serious, would you be prepared to take the money you asked for but contract to pay back 4x what you receive if the PCEHR fails on some rather simple measures?
In answer to the first half of your question the answer is Yes - because it is my entitlement.
"In answer to the first half of your question the answer is Yes - because it is my entitlement." Now we get to the crux of it all - one of the biggest problems in our society - that of entitlement. No one is "entitled" to anything other than an opportunity to have a go. If you are that good (and current evidence would indicate not), then go out and have a go on your own. You might surprise yourself!
All those "entitled" individuals should stop being a drag on the economy and transition to become Net Tax Payers instead of Net Tax Takers.
Extracting tax payers money for no value creation in return are ill gotten gains and there's no honour in that.
But the blatant corruption exhibited at our highest levels of government and bureaucracies, that is NO "neighborhood myth", ensures these dishonourable individuals will safely remain as thick as parasitic thieves!
One can only hope, David, that the Board have woken up and perhaps removed the most inept of CEOs - Australian healthcare deserves better.
ReplyDeleteHmm. My grapevine tells me similar. Hopefully, change is for the better.
ReplyDeleteBin the lot and shutter the whole organisation while they are at it!
ReplyDelete1. Where will those "leaving" go to and what "influences" will they have on incoming staff if they are employed in the e-health industry?
ReplyDelete2. Who will replace them because the new people need to be "selected"? Who are the "selectors"?
3. Will the new board have "ears" or require "hearing aids" for e-health?
One can only hope that the Board have woken up.
ReplyDeleteThe Board have seen what a disaster this whole exercise has been for quite a few years now. They have not woken up - they have always been awake; just too inept to know what to do to fix the problem.
What they have just discovered is that they can now dump the whole shebang back on he Feds under the premise that the States have no more money to put into the NEHTA dream because the Feds have been cutting the States budgets. The Feds are the ones to blame.
As for the Senior Execs getting out - they know this is the end game it's only a matter of how big the parachute and when can I jump to maximize my final payout.
Wonder if they ponder that their parachute and final payout has been extracted directly from the pockets of the long suffering "Net Tax Payer"?
ReplyDeleteThe senior executive "parasitic" thieves!
Carpetbaggers don't think that way.
ReplyDeleteWe have done a great job and worked very hard for a modest remuneration. Now that we are being forced to leave by circumstances beyond our control it is only right and proper that we be fully compensated in our final payout to make up for the relatively low remuneration we have received over many years in leading the dysfunctional organisation we inherited whilst delivering the first highly functional national ehealth system to the Australian taxpayer. An achievement which has eluded Britain, Canada and the USA. We have much to be proud of for which we should be fully compensated.
The extent of self-delusion bound up in that line of reasoning is beyond comprehension!
ReplyDeleteNot to say that that's unfortunately not the case here.
Parasitic thieves are still parasitic thieves no matter how they think or speak of themselves.
Dear 3/02/2013 10:00:00 AM you have to understand that when we are so close (perhaps two years max) to finishing the job which no-one else has been able to do, and now to find ourselves being prematurely terminated it is not unreasonable to expect to be compensated for the two years we should have been able to work plus pain and suffering - say current package x 4 give or take a bit.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete"... we are so close (perhaps two years max) to finishing the job which no-one else has been able to do ..."
1. If you are being sarcastic, I've nothing to add.
2. If you are serious, then you haven't been listening. The PCEHR is fundamentally flawed. It has been implemented as an IT system not part of a health information system.
It's rather like building a house with the wrong floor plan and in the wrong place. It may or may not have been built well, but it is still the wrong house in the wrong place.
The PCEHR is the wrong solution, mainly because the real problems have not been defined or resolved, neither have the new problems that are created by implementing a PCEHR been identified and resolved.
Assuming you are serious, would you be prepared to take the money you asked for but contract to pay back 4x what you receive if the PCEHR fails on some rather simple measures?
It's an easy question. Of course you would say yes, because
a) defining some "rather simple measures" is actually difficult and
b) you can always blame someone else.
Just like the current situation.
IMHO, the one word that describes this whole sorry affair is "hubris"
Assuming you are serious, would you be prepared to take the money you asked for but contract to pay back 4x what you receive if the PCEHR fails on some rather simple measures?
ReplyDeleteIn answer to the first half of your question the answer is Yes - because it is my entitlement.
"In answer to the first half of your question the answer is Yes - because it is my entitlement."
ReplyDeleteNow we get to the crux of it all - one of the biggest problems in our society - that of entitlement.
No one is "entitled" to anything other than an opportunity to have a go. If you are that good (and current evidence would indicate not), then go out and have a go on your own. You might surprise yourself!
Exactly right!
ReplyDeleteAll those "entitled" individuals should stop being a drag on the economy and transition to become Net Tax Payers instead of Net Tax Takers.
Extracting tax payers money for no value creation in return are ill gotten gains and there's no honour in that.
But the blatant corruption exhibited at our highest levels of government and bureaucracies, that is NO "neighborhood myth", ensures these dishonourable individuals will safely remain as thick as parasitic thieves!
You are
ReplyDelete1. Being taken in by someone trying to wind you all up
2. Drifted to the original subject
David is it people leaving or returning?
Leaving I suspect given noises regarding resumes being hawked around.
ReplyDeleteDavid.
they are in the market now looking to fill roles that people are already in. has anyone there ever heard of redundancy and constructive dismissal
ReplyDelete