Wednesday, May 17, 2017
The Medical Republic and Jeremy Knibbs Are On A Roll As Far As The myHR Is Concerned.
This appeared late last week:
12 May 2017
In the ABC satire Utopia, the head of department asks a consultant to do an “independent review” of a recent project. The consultant asks: “What do you want the findings to be?”
The government-commissioned report by the Siggins Miller consultancy on the My Health Record trials is life imitating art. Here are 10 reasons why this report feels a lot like it is what the Department of Health wanted it to be.
So far, not one key stakeholder has bought into the MyHR in a meaningful manner, except, of course, for the government itself. Not patients, not healthcare professionals, not key service providers such as software vendors or private pathology.
So, after $1.5 billion and counting, what is the government’s answer to this dilemma? Make it compulsory? Sorry.
What if the system and the concept are (or always have been) fundamentally flawed? There are lots of reasons to suggest that the MyHR idea, certainly in its original grand form, has had its time.
Several technologies are reinventing the concept of a flexible electronic health record from the ground up. More agile, more accurate and timely patient record systems have started via private providers, and they look like they will do a lot of the job the MyHR was originally designed to do.
Yet here we are considering making the system compulsory and tying all points of data in our health system to it. Without understanding its utlity in our rapidly evolving digital ecosystem better such a move risks creating ‘the mother of all red tape’. We are at the point of bribing doctors to use it via ePIP, and they still don’t engage in it meaningfully.
Do we really think the standover regulatory path will make it work? We’ve had to pay GP-patient management software vendors to write to it, because they didn’t see any use in it.
The major private pathology providers won’t touch it because they see no benefit. Patients don’t care about it, which is why we’ve decided we need to opt them in, understanding full well that their apathy will work in our favour once it’s opt out.
The argument from the DoH seems to go that the reason no one is engaging so far is because the system needs a critical mass of data. Maybe. But if no one is engaging – patients, doctors and service providers – wouldn’t you be a bit cautious about simply ‘enforcing’ the use of the system?
Read the other 9 points here:
I have to say it is really good to see that there are others who have scepticism regarding the myHR.
I look forward to continued analysis that highlights just how many warts there are on this awful myHR program!
Posted by Dr David G More MB PhD at Wednesday, May 17, 2017