The Communique's last 2 lines:
"Ministers agreed to a national opt out model for the long term participation arrangements in the my Health Record system."
So much for making evidence for the change public and explaining it to the public.
This lot are just so hopeless it is scary - burying such an important step in the last 2 lines of the Communique. And worse it was all done on a Friday afternoon....
I give up!
David.
10 comments:
David, you should not be surprised it was quickly dealt with at the end of the day when everyone was tired and ready to go home. It was totally predictable. .
Ian McLoughlin et al accurately sum the situation up as follows:
1. The inherent complexity of these often ‘hyper-ambitious endeavours is beyond the competence of the politicians who initiate tem and the civil servants who advise them. Moreover, the projects typically progress in the absence of appropriate means of tracking progress and allocating accountability, with the consequence that the scale and gravity of the ‘blunder’ usually emerges slowly and only after most of the damage has been done. [King A, Crewe I. The blunders of our governments. London: Oneworld Publications: 2014.]
2. Moreover, in the Australian case, these solutions were developed by bureaucrats and ICT specialists, not by people with a deep understanding of the ways in which information is created and used in healthcare.
3. Politicians and policymakers failed to recognise the complexity and risk inherent in NEHRS projects, succumbing instead to a ‘dangerous enthusiasm’ for electronic ‘solutions’ to the problems facing healthcare. There was an unwillingness to learn from these failed projects.
I read it as COAG thinks it is complete dribble, won't cost them anything, not their problem, hey why not Canberra your stuff ups take attention away from ours. By they way next year the States will be looking to relax their initial commitment just like before.
The public are not behind this, GP's are not really behind this, Looking at twitter and the press there might be some 20 people who are behind this.
healthcare models are changing, this model no longer has a purpose. We need new standards, new architectures, new models of agreements and inter-working. The new dynamics introduce a complexity I think the Agency no longer has the ability to grasp.
This is good news, finally we can move forward. Nice Job Tim. I am looking forward to who picks this up now your bit is done and delivers.
Tim was picked because he failed in UK. Now he can fail here. Same old same old.
I notice the CEO of ADHA is attending the 2017 Health Datapalooz is the US. I hope this is not at our expense? I am wearing thin of funding is ego driven magic mystery tour of Australia and would be very dissapointed if we are funding this.
From what I hear and witness about the ADHA as an organisation it is time we brought in someone with real experience of the political, technical and clinical arena in Australia.
Hopefully scoping work in the US, you would be mad to send him to the UK at the moment with care.data demonstrating it is a gift that keeps giving.
Maybe he can explain to the conference why his dissolved links with Standards and sacked a long standing and highly knowledgable champion of interoperable electronic healthcare.
Given that he is relatively bereft of original ideas (as demonstrated by his constant parroting of old material and reinforced by Dr Makeham doing the same) it should not be surprising that he is off to the US to see what he can learn from the Americans.
Perhaps, if he acknowledged that the US has consistently failed in this space, as has the UK and Australia, he might be able to admit that what he left behind in the UK was a disaster and that it is now time for him to stop wasting his time and our money travelling around the world and start focusing on how to address the problems at home; by stepping aside and letting Australian developers(which are inherently creative and capable of leading the way as they have done in the past) do the job.
I am not sure what to make of this being a mere entry at the end of other business? Is it because of a failure to position the pcehr as something worth discussing or is it to early in the gating process and we have two or more years before this gets through various endorsements.
Like others I question if this document store option has a role in the present and future, the world has changed, technologies have changed.
Has all the makings of backing a new Minister into a corner. Why is there no detailed designs available that show how the current document store can achieve the data use cases many are identifying as its future value proposition?
As for National opt-out, I hope the Department of Finance factors in that these Business Case submissions always cost 4 times more than stated and drag on for years.
I am also sure certain people will be weighing up their futures and if this is a risk worth taking.
What I haven't seen discussed is the issue of myGov.
If you need a myGov account to get to My Health Record (which AFAIK is the intention) that means everyone who doesn't opt out will need (or be given?) a myGov account.
It will be interesting to see how they propose to get this to work - and/or be accepted.
There is an old adage: if you have dug yourself into a hole, the last thing you should do is keep digging.
Post a Comment