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.
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"
or
H. L. Mencken - "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Please A Few Suggestions For Poll Question Of The Week - I Am Tired!!!!!
All ideas considered!
David
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Do you think that people who promote MyHR actually understand how it works?
Does anyone believe that ADHA is capable of achieving its mission "To create a collaborative environment to accelerate adoption and use of innovative digital services and technologies"
Do the Senate Estimates politicians and Health Minister's honestly believe the ADHAs claims that over 23 million Australians are currently using the My Health Record?
When examining the Federal Budget line item by line item do the Federal Treasurer and Finance Minister have the power to terminate further My Health Record funding?
Will the Albanese Government decide to close down the ADHA and reallocate the annual $400 million funding [$2 billion over the next 5 years] to a much higher and urgent health system priority?
1) As HCPs, proportion of your Pts/encounters actually helped after accessing their MHR? Less than 1 per 5000; lt 1/1000; lt 3/1000; lt 10/1000; lt 30/1000; lt 100/1000; lt 300/1000; gt 300/1000. 2) For a typical month, do you see benefit from using MHR vs time/cost? greater than 75% more time/cost than benefit; gt 25% more...; about similar; gt 25% more benefit than time/cost; gt 75% more benefit than time/cost. 3) What is the biggest problem/priority for interoperability to work? researching & creating standards; enforcing standards; funding implementations; funding users & usage; increasing standards in degree content & training (best practice that enables interoperability); industry org to transform different systems to be interoperable (3rd party apps/service to transform existing data & enable messaging/transactions). How to deal with bigger issues than the simple weekly poll can do?
Are major healthcare organisations and other non-healthcare organisation like the ADHA using a tracker called the Meta Pixel on their websites? Are do you believe they would inform users?
Are you suggesting that the GP should spend less time treating the patient and more time creating a document that some other GP (or medic) might just possibly be able to work out if the information ever was or is still relevant?
Or maybe spend more time for which they wouldn't get paid by the government but might be able to charge private patients more?
Let us know what you think the "right" question might be.
Oh, and by the way, judging by the enthusiasm most patients have for MyHR, very few think that MyHR is any good for them.
> Let us know what you think the "right" question might be.
The right question is "Is spending some of the time allocated to the consultation on updating the patient's MyHR a good investment of time for the patient"
I think that the answer to this question is no, and I would not ask my doctor to do that.
I think that the government should be asking 'what system changes can we make to the MyHR to change the answer to yes it's a good idea' instead of what they are asking, which is some variant of 'how we can manipulate the system into pretending it's a good idea'. It maybe that there's no possible answer to the former question, in which case they should shut the system down and keep the underlying infrastructure for use in other solutions.
But I doubt that this is possible politically, even with a changed government. The problem is one that I've seen elsewhere: there is *no* question that the government needs to do something about digital health, and stopping doing something about digital health on efficiency grounds opens up the government to the accusation that it doesn't care about people's health. Which is more expensive? Spending a few hundred million a year and wearing the grumbles, or trying to justify a complicated decision like that over media assault that you don't care about health? I remain hopeful that sense will break out, but it seems unlikely
14 comments:
Do you think that people who promote MyHR actually understand how it works?
Does anyone believe that ADHA is capable of achieving its mission "To create a collaborative environment to accelerate adoption and use of innovative digital services and technologies"
Do the Senate Estimates politicians and Health Minister's honestly believe the ADHAs claims that over 23 million Australians are currently using the My Health Record?
Will the new Labor Health Minister acknowledge the My Health Record IT experiment has failed and terminate further funding?
Is the ADHA Board acting responsibly and providing good governance?
When examining the Federal Budget line item by line item do the Federal Treasurer and Finance Minister have the power to terminate further My Health Record funding?
Will the Albanese Government decide to close down the ADHA and reallocate the annual $400 million funding [$2 billion over the next 5 years] to a much higher and urgent health system priority?
1) As HCPs, proportion of your Pts/encounters actually helped after accessing their MHR? Less than 1 per 5000; lt 1/1000; lt 3/1000; lt 10/1000; lt 30/1000; lt 100/1000; lt 300/1000; gt 300/1000.
2) For a typical month, do you see benefit from using MHR vs time/cost? greater than 75% more time/cost than benefit; gt 25% more...; about similar; gt 25% more benefit than time/cost; gt 75% more benefit than time/cost.
3) What is the biggest problem/priority for interoperability to work? researching & creating standards; enforcing standards; funding implementations; funding users & usage; increasing standards in degree content & training (best practice that enables interoperability); industry org to transform different systems to be interoperable (3rd party apps/service to transform existing data & enable messaging/transactions).
How to deal with bigger issues than the simple weekly poll can do?
Wishing you well David.
Has the creation of multiple federal entities to deal with digitalisation of healthcare:
Created a level playing field for vendors
Simplified governance
Delivered value to tax payers
Stretched limited resources, prevented collaboration, stifled standards and lost opportunities
Is it realistic to expect GPs to spend time creating and managing a patient's MyHr when there is nothing in it for themn, only other doctors?
Are major healthcare organisations and other non-healthcare organisation like the ADHA using a tracker called the Meta Pixel on their websites? Are do you believe they would inform users?
> Is it realistic to expect GPs to spend time creating and managing a patient's MyHr when there is nothing in it for them, only other doctors?
The point of the consultation - what doctors are paid for - is to do what's good for the patient. So this is that wrong question
"So this is that wrong question"
That doesn't make sense.
Are you suggesting that the GP should spend less time treating the patient and more time creating a document that some other GP (or medic) might just possibly be able to work out if the information ever was or is still relevant?
Or maybe spend more time for which they wouldn't get paid by the government but might be able to charge private patients more?
Let us know what you think the "right" question might be.
Oh, and by the way, judging by the enthusiasm most patients have for MyHR, very few think that MyHR is any good for them.
Thanks to all for ideas! I will try to use them over the next few weeks.
David.
> Let us know what you think the "right" question might be.
The right question is "Is spending some of the time allocated to the consultation on updating the patient's MyHR a good investment of time for the patient"
I think that the answer to this question is no, and I would not ask my doctor to do that.
I think that the government should be asking 'what system changes can we make to the MyHR to change the answer to yes it's a good idea' instead of what they are asking, which is some variant of 'how we can manipulate the system into pretending it's a good idea'. It maybe that there's no possible answer to the former question, in which case they should shut the system down and keep the underlying infrastructure for use in other solutions.
But I doubt that this is possible politically, even with a changed government. The problem is one that I've seen elsewhere: there is *no* question that the government needs to do something about digital health, and stopping doing something about digital health on efficiency grounds opens up the government to the accusation that it doesn't care about people's health. Which is more expensive? Spending a few hundred million a year and wearing the grumbles, or trying to justify a complicated decision like that over media assault that you don't care about health? I remain hopeful that sense will break out, but it seems unlikely
Post a Comment