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."

Friday, September 25, 2009

International News Extras For the Week (21/09/2009).

Again there has been just a heap of stuff arrive this week.

First we have:

Tool to Offer Fast Help for H.I.V. Exposure

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Time is of the essence in treating someone who may have been exposed to the AIDS virus. Starting Wednesday, emergency room doctors throughout New York State will be just a computer click away from concise guidelines for starting prompt drug treatment that can reduce the risk of becoming infected.

The guidelines come in the form of a computer application, or widget, developed by a team of doctors from St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan with financing from the state’s AIDS Institute. They are to be given to more than 200 emergency departments this week and distributed more widely over time.

The doctors who developed the widget call it a “one-stop shopping” approach to PEP, or post-exposure prophylactic treatment. It walks users through a screening process to determine whether they are candidates for treatment, provides specific information about the 28-day course of antiretroviral drugs, and even links to consent forms in 22 languages, including Creole, Laotian and Yoruba.

Much more here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/health/08hiv.html?_r=2

Now here is a really useful e-Health application – a quick guide to what to do if you might have had a dangerous needlestick. Would be reassuring to know where that site was and have it bookmarked!

Second we have:

Measuring the Effectiveness of Imaging Tests Not Clear Cut

Carrie Vaughan, for HealthLeaders Media, September 15, 2009

Even though one-third of healthcare providers are continuing a freeze on purchasing imaging equipment, many are in the market to buy again with MRI equipment topping the list for planned imaging equipment purchases in the next two years, according to a new report from KLAS, an independent research organization that monitors the performance of HIT software and medical equipment vendors in Orem, UT.

At the same time, the federal government is looking for ways to reduce its imaging costs, which more than doubled to $14 billion between 2000 and 2006 for Medicare beneficiaries. One strategy is to reduce reimbursement for providers by lowering the value of equipment factored into the payment equation.

Another strategy is to require preauthorization for imaging tests like CT, MRI, and PET scans much like the radiology benefits managers used by some private insurers. A U.S. Office of Inspector General report, which found evidence that doctors in certain geographic areas may order significantly more unnecessary ultrasounds than physicians in other regions, added more ammunition to the debate that Medicare should adopt an RBM model.

However, measuring the effectiveness of imaging tests and determining when tests are appropriate is not as clear cut as one may think. I spoke to Jeffrey Barth Weilburg, MD, associate medical director of the Massachusetts General Physician Organization, which represents approximately 1,600 employed physicians at MGH, for the HealthLeaders magazine story, "How Many Slices Do You Really Need?" (September 2009).

More here:

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/238997/topic/WS_HLM2_TEC/Measuring-the-Effectiveness-of-Imaging-Tests-Not-Clear-Cut.html

This is an interesting discussion and shows just how hard it is to manage burgeoning technology costs in the health sector.

Third we have:

The Heart of PACS

While most CIOs feel secure taking on the challenge of traditional radiology-focused PACS, cardiology PACS is another story

by Mark Hagland

Even before they can think about the integration of radiology and cardiology PACS, simply getting first-generation cardiology PACS implemented is turning out to be a major challenge for CIOs.

Why cardiology PACS development should be difficult is illustrated by the simple fact that there are more devices involved, more diverse types of images and data, and a far more complex and interactive patient care environment in cardiology than in radiology. It's no wonder that cardiology PACS remains a first-generation phenomenon, even in the most “advanced” of hospital organizations.

Indeed, when asked what the leading edge is in cardiology PACS development right now, Scott Grier says, “I don't know that there is yet a leading edge, at the moment.” In fact, says Grier, principal in Sarasota, Fla.-based Preferred Healthcare Consulting, “I think that cardiology today is where radiology was in the mid-1990s, in terms of digitization. We spent years porting certain elements of radiology work from analog to digital. Now, we're at the same level in cardiology.” And while there isn't enough pressure from the American College of Cardiology or other organizations to bring all of the disparate formats into one console, some vendors are exploring that, he says. “In hospitals, we have all these formats, but we can't launch from a single workstation. So it raises the costs to be able to view any particular study,” which is why some organizations are moving ahead despite the challenges.

Reporting continues here:

http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63163CE5901A4CB79222387325054E18&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=E344B2F33F094CA0A2A8E60590802BAE

Given the impact of radiology department PACS I was surprised to read this. More work needed I guess.

Fourth we have:

Friday, September 11, 2009

Will Your Health Care Organization Need To Hire More IT Staff in the Next One to Two Years?

Seventy-nine percent of health IT professionals surveyed said their organization would hire additional staff in the next one to two years to meet its IT needs as the industry transitions to electronic health records, according to a new Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society survey.

Eleven percent of respondents said their organizations would not hire additional staff in the next one to two years, while 4% said they did not know and 7% said the question was not applicable to their organization.

More here :

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/Data-Points/2009/Will-Your-Health-Care-Organization-Need-To-Hire-More-IT-Staff-in-the-Next-One-to-Two-Years.aspx

Definitely good news for those in the field! See the Graph on the link.

Fifth we have:

Digital tools let doctors see patients via Internet

'Telehealth' gains amid prospect of shortage, insurers' acceptance

When Robyn Broomell was pregnant a few years ago, she needed advice from a specialist at the University of Maryland Medical Center because she is a diabetic.

But Broomell, 35, of Rising Sun, never set foot in the specialist's Baltimore office. Instead, she met him several times by videoconference while she was at an Elkton hospital, saving her the trip down Interstate 95.

"At first, I was kind of leery" of long-distance medical advice, she said. "I thought it was kind of an odd thing. But it was very convenient, and I could get used to convenience. It takes me 45 minutes to an hour to drive to Baltimore, and I didn't have to do that."

Broomell was an early beneficiary of "telehealth," in which medical professionals using digital tools and the Web can cut the waiting time for care from days or weeks to minutes.

Thanks to factors including a looming physician shortage, the health care reform debate and the increasing willingness of insurance companies to pay for the practice, telehealth is on the verge of becoming routine.

In the near future you could be connected by video to a specialist dozens or hundreds of miles away. Consider something as mundane as a skin rash. If your primary care doctor thinks she needs outside expertise, she can use digital diagnostic tools to generate high-resolution images of the rash and beam them to a dermatologist in another office for rapid diagnosis.

Lots more here:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.mobile14sep14,0,136812.story

Promise of stimulus money drives up health IT stock prices

The $18 billion being pumped into health care has many investors hoping it will result in big business for vendors.

By Pamela Lewis Dolan, AMNews staff. Posted Sept. 14, 2009.

Even if physicians haven't figured out yet whether they will buy new information technology, Wall Street assumes they will.

According to a July report by Healthcare Growth Partners, which advises small- to medium-sized health companies on financing, health information technology stocks outperformed broader markets during the first half of 2009 with a growth of 30%, compared with a 2% gain by Standard and Poor's 500 index and 16% for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Stock Market. For the most part, health care technology stocks have held those gains into early September.

Meanwhile, Emdeon, a claims-processing company, on Aug. 12 had a rousing initial public offering of stock. It issued 2 million more shares than expected to meet demand, and share prices reached $16.52 at the end of the first day, ahead of the company's $15 target. Emdeon, which raised $365.7 million, formerly was affiliated with Healtheon, which in 1996 was online health's first hugely popular IPO.

Days after Emdeon's IPO, Alpharetta, Ga.-based HealthPort, filed plans for a $100 million initial offering. The health IT company sells services to hospital and physician clinics that allow information from patient records to be requested by and provided to authorized parties such as insurance companies and government agencies. HealthPort did not disclose the timetable of its offering.

Christopher McCord, principal of Healthcare Growth Partners, said that because of the $18 billion made available through the federal stimulus package for the advancement of electronic health record adoption, a lot of activity is expected in the health IT market in the future.

More here:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/09/14/bisc0914.htm

That would have to be what they say as ‘stating the blooming obvious’!

Seventh we have:

Ethiopians offered free AIDS tests by text message

Tue Sep 8, 2009 1:23pm EDT

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Ethiopia is sending text messages to mobile phone users offering free HIV/AIDS tests ahead of New Year celebrations, in a drive to have more people checked in sub-Saharan Africa's second most populous nation.

"New Year! New Life! Test for HIV, test with your partner, get your children tested and brighten the future of your family! Free testing. Happy New Year!" says an SMS message which is being sent in batches ahead of this week's celebrations.

Ethiopia follows a calendar long abandoned by the West that squeezes 13 months into every year and entered the 21st century in 2007. It will become 2002 in Ethiopia on September 11.

The text messages are being sent to all of Ethiopia's 2.5 million mobile users and have been hitting handsets for the last week in the capital Addis Ababa and most of the country's major towns. There is also a billboard campaign offering free checks.

More here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/Continental/idUSTRE5874V720090908

This is about as basic an e-Health initiative as one can think of. Well done!

Eighth we have:

Dell Tries to Make an EHR Splash

HDM Breaking News, September 10, 2009

Seeking to capitalize on the federal electronic health records incentive program, hardware giant Dell Inc. is marketing a package of EHR-related consulting services that hospitals can offer to area physicians.

The Round Rock, Texas-based company is attempting to get a piece of the EHR action by helping hospitals assist affiliated physicians with making the transition to electronic records. Two initial clients are Tufts Medical Center in Boston and Memorial Hermann Healthcare System in Houston, says James Coffin, vice president of Dell Healthcare and Life Sciences.

As part of the effort, Dell has entered formal partnerships with two EHR vendors: Allscripts, Chicago, and eClinicalWorks, Westborough, Mass. It plans to eventually partner with other EHR vendors.

Full article here:

http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/Dell-38952-1.html?ET=healthdatamanagement:e1007:100325a:&st=email

Wonderful what major stimulus funds will flush out of the woodwork!

Ninth we have:

Norwegian hospital digitisation examined

16 Sep 2009

A new report, which examines how Norwegian hospitals have adopted digital technologies, concludes there is no single formulae for successful implementations.

The report titled: “Best practices: Norway's hospital evolution- A tale of two cities, compares the successful implementation of integrated hospital networks in newly built facilities in both Olavs Hospital in Trondheim and Ahus Hospital in Oslo.

The projects, which involved full replacement of old facilities in order to create the digital hospitals, used different methods to implement the digital hospital vision

Jan Duffy, research director, IDC Health Insights, said: “St Olavs used a campus-like facility with six clinical centers built around a central plaza while Ahus a large multi-purpose facility.”

The report compares the technologies used by the St Olavs project, which were very young and unproven when they were selected in 1991 with the more mature technology available when Ahus began implementing them in 2001.

More here:

http://www.ehealtheurope.net/news/5209/norwegian_hospital_digitisation_examined

Link

Best practices: Norway’s hospital evolution-A tale of two cities

An interesting report of some different approaches.

Tenth we have:

Rwanda: MoH to Launch E-Health

Irene V. Nambi

16 September 2009

Kigali — In line with the country's goal of promoting the use of ICT in all institutions, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is set to roll out, state-of-the-art software systems in all hospitals next year.

This was revealed by the Ministry's e- Health Coordinator, Richard Gakuba, in an interview with The New Times. He said the new system will be a solution to most problems that hospitals still face with regard to efficiency in service provision and boosting quality care.

"A new software system called Jeeva has already been introduced in King Faisal Hospital (KFH) and installation will soon be completed.

So far, it has enabled patients to register and consult health workers in the shortest time possible and improved general hospital management."

"Many other hospitals are still losing big sums of money as a result of inaccurate financial management but soon, this will be history. Proper management of patients' flow in hospitals as well as stock management will be guaranteed with new software systems," Gakuba explained.

More here:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200909170080.html

This must be a hopeful sign from the recently ravaged country!

Eleventh for the week we have:

Medicare to Fund 'Medical Home' Model

By JANE ZHANG

WASHINGTON --The Obama administration said Medicare will help fund state pilot projects that use primary-care doctors and teams of coordinators to manage patient care and reduce costs.

Under the "medical home" model, pioneered in Vermont and several other states, physicians are paid more for coordinating care for their patients. The goal is to help patients – especially those with chronic illnesses – stay healthy enough to avoid hospital trips and expensive treatments, saving money in the long run.

"It's better for doctors, better for patients, and better for our national balance sheet, which is why this program has such widespread endorsement," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who announced the initiative Wednesday at the White House with Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas.

Ms. Sebelius said she made the decision at the prodding of governors, including Mr. Douglas, who already has a pilot program running in his state. Vermont's three major insurers along with Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor, fund a pool of money used to pay the salaries for coordinating teams that might include nutritionists, social workers and nurse practitioners.

More here (subscription required):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125313645498617439.html

Of course, to adopt this model of care good Health IT is vital!

Fourth last we have:

Standards Committee moves into guidance phase

September 17, 2009 — 12:50pm ET | By Neil Versel

It's getting to be crunch time for the federal Health IT Standards Committee, which is moving from studying previous work in the area of standards to producing implementation guidance for the hundreds of thousands of hospitals, physician practices, laboratories, pharmacies, imaging centers, health plans and the like that will be shifting to EMRs in the next few years. The committee this week approved recommendations from its workgroup on privacy and security, but now the task gets more difficult.

More here:

http://www.fierceemr.com/story/standards-committee-moves-guidance-phase/2009-09-17?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

To learn more about the next steps for the HIT Standards Committee:

- see this Healthcare IT News story

- have a look at this Health Data Management piece

- read the committee's report (.ppt)

The links point to some very interesting material.

Third last we have:

Smoothing the Path
Leading with portals can lay the groundwork for CPOE, making rollouts less risky

by Kara Marx, R.N.

At Methodist Hospital, our strategic vision is to provide the Next Generation of Care for our physicians and staff, as well as the patients we treat. Obviously, technology plays a major role in achieving that goal. We set a clear vision of our ultimate healthcare IT destination as part of our strategic plan: a fully functional EMR system and a three-to-five year plan to achieve computerized physician order entry (CPOE). However, the path to achieving this goal was uncertain.

As a community hospital staffed by volunteer physicians, we had several concerns not shared by our colleagues in academic, research and private settings. Community hospitals have a lower threshold for risk tolerance, and it is very difficult to mandate technological change to a volunteer staff. We categorize Methodist as a “fast follower,” rather than early adopter. Any IT path we take has to exhibit proof points from other hospitals who have utilized our vendor of choice before we contract.

We also understand that most CPOE projects to date have been met with, at best, mixed success. Thankfully, as a result of both failed and successful CPOE projects, there was also an opportunity to utilize these lessons to inform our initiative and give it the best chance for success. This was crucial. As everyone reading these words well understands, the consequences of an IT project failure can be huge, not just from a financial standpoint but also from a loss of momentum and confidence. The ability to recover with your users becomes twice as challenging.

In a nutshell: Methodist simply could not tolerate a failure in this endeavor, neither financially nor culturally.

Much more here:

http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=00790EFCE1F04D8C991ECD655C9051A3

An interesting approach to a complex transition

Second last we have:

IOM: Feds should add ethnicity and language measures to EHRs

By Kathryn Foxhall

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) should develop standards for detailing patient ethnicity and level of language proficiency in electronic health records, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended in a recent report.

The collection of more specific ethnicity and language information would strengthen data HHS now gathers to track variations in the delivery of healthcare based on race and ethnicity.

“By inclusion of this standardized information in electronic health record systems, it will be possible to stratify quality performance metrics, combine data from various sources, and make comparisons across settings and payment mechanisms,” the Aug. 31 report said.

More here:

http://www.govhealthit.com/newsitem.aspx?nid=72061

The report is available online.

Interesting stuff.

Last, and very usefully, we have:

Federal panel okays EHR security, privacy standards

By Mary Mosquera
Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Health IT Standards Committee today endorsed a set of security and privacy standards for electronic health record systems that it said would get progressively tougher without holding back wider health information sharing.

The committee’s security and privacy workgroup clarified requirements that electronic health record systems must meet so both vendors and healthcare providers could use a number of access controls in their electronic health record systems and practices by 2011.

The presentation to the Committee was made by workgroup member David McCallie, vice president for medical informatics at Cerner Corp.

McCallie said the standards were designed to ensure that the security of health IT systems is powerful enough to protect health information in a variety of private and public sector settings while at the same time promoting the sharing of records.

For instance, organizations that want to swap information may have differing security and privacy requirements, making it a challenge to exchange data. “If they want to communicate with each other, do we rise to the most stringent system or lower ourselves to the most common denominator?" he said.

The standards under discussion cover access control, authentication, authorization and transmission of health data. The group tried to make the guidance clear enough to make interoperability between organizations a reality, McCallie said.

“Security is a balance between ease-of-use, cost and bullet-proof protection,” added Dr. John Halamka, vice chairman of the Committee. The workgroup has tried to provide “a rational glide path to increasingly constrained security,” he added.

Much more here:

http://www.govhealthit.com/newsitem.aspx?nid=72099

This is important stuff – especially the phased approach being adopted to improved information sharing standards.

There is an amazing amount happening. Enjoy!

David.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Ms Roxon Talks – Without Understanding - to the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA)

On the 23rd of September our Federal Health Minister spoke at the Annual MTAA Conference.

This speech is reported here:

Nicola Roxon takes whip to 'cowboy' marketing

Siobhain Ryan | September 24, 2009

Article from: The Australian

CANBERRA will target its $14.8 billion Medicare system for major savings and crack down on "cowboy" marketing practices for flashy new medical technologies.

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has issued a strongly worded challenge to doctors, drug and medical device makers to stop resisting reform and to help trim costs by backing more cost-effective technologies.

"It is frustrating that wherever I go I find almost universal agreement that we need reform and to use taxpayer funds more wisely, but it is always with a 'not in my backyard' caveat," Ms Roxon told the annual conference of the Medical Technology Association of Australia in Sydney yesterday.

"When we spend $14.8bn a year on the MBS, there are clearly some major savings to be made," she added.

Doctors, pathologists and drug companies all suffered cuts to their taxpayer-funded fees in this year's budget, with the government signalling more pain could follow next year to help finance its ambitious health reform agenda.

Last month, Kevin Rudd outlined plans to regularly review the effectiveness of subsidised medical treatments and cut funding from those found to be ineffective.

Ms Roxon said the current review of the way Canberra assesses health technologies, to report at the end of this year, would drive the Prime Minister's push for accountability. She said one area of savings would be to wean doctors and patients off the "flashiest technologies" in favour of better-value ones.

More here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26117209-23289,00.html

For those of us interested in e-Health we find the following in related to e-Health.

“What savings can pay for

All of this is just by way of explaining that we need to look at a smarter use of our health budget because the reform directions proposed by the Commission, whilst exciting and far reaching, do not come cheap.

The Commission estimates its recommendations could cost more than $5 billion per annum, plus $4 billion a year for a national dental scheme, and system wide capital costs of up to $7 billion. Others have already indicated these costs may be rather low estimates.

Think of the potential offered by the introduction of person-controlled electronic health records. The Commission recommends we do this by 1 July 2012, and estimates the cost at somewhere between $1.1 and $1.8 billion.

An electronic health record really does have the potential to revolutionise how we deliver health care services.

It is estimated that 30 to 50 per cent of patients with chronic disease are hospitalised because of inadequate care management.

An Electronic Health Record would mean patients will be able to present for health service treatment anywhere in the country, and with patient approval, the treating health professional will be able to access a summary of the patient’s treatment and medication history at the touch of a button.

For health professionals, this will mean that less valuable time is lost, expensive tests are not being re-ordered or duplicated at a cost to the taxpayer, and knowledge is shared.

In fact, it has been estimated that up to 18 per cent of medical errors are attributed to inadequate availability of patient information, and between 9 and 17 per cent of pathology and diagnostic tests are unnecessary duplicates. When we spend $14.8 billion a year on the MBS, there are clearly some major savings to be made.

The Commission’s report is quite clearly excited by the potential shift towards more personal, patient-centred health care that e-health and medical technology can help create.

I said earlier it will require leadership from the profession and the industry to help us realize this potential.”

The full speech is found here:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/sp-yr09-nr-nrsp230909.htm?OpenDocument

I am really getting a little tired of this approach of linking the fate of e-Health in Australia to savings being made elsewhere in the budget.

This is genuinely 19th Century thinking in my view. The government has cost benefit studies from NEHTA, The Allen Consulting Group and KPMG, among others, all of which show e-Health done properly will actually save money in considerable quantities.

The evidence for this (in Australia) is quite well summarised here:

http://www.nhhrc.org.au/internet/nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/16F7A93D8F578DB4CA2574D7001830E9/$File/E-Health%20-%20Enabler%20for%20Australia%27s%20Health%20Reform,%20Booz%20&%20Company,%20November%202008.pdf

as well as in the NHHRC final report (in a slightly confused way) and here:

http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/getreport.php?report=201&id=257

Ms Roxon needs to just stop running this silly line and get the Health Sector’s share of the Stimulus Funds spent in this area! (given health has missed out totally to date!)

David.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

It Is About Time This Patchwork Was Properly Fixed.

The following excellent review appeared a few days ago.

IT Advocate: The privacy minefield

There are significant differences between state and federal privacy legislation. CIOs who deal with government agencies or other public sector organisations must determine the privacy laws applicable to them – and how best to accommodate them.

Emma Weedon 15 September, 2009 08:05:00

It is clear to most businesses that deal with personal information that the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and National Privacy Principles (NPPs) impact in some way or another on them in terms of rights and obligations under the Act. Conversely, consumers dealing with private sector organisations can be relatively certain of the procedures by which they can access personal information held by private sector organisations, or make a complaint in respect of the information handling practices of such an organisation.

However, if consumers or service provider businesses find themselves dealing with government-owned corporations, universities, local governments, state governments or a raft of other state-based public sector bodies, they will need to undertake a significant amount of research to determine the privacy laws applicable to them, and how to best deal with those privacy laws.

At least one thing is clear -- all jurisdictions recognise a definition of personal information that is roughly the same and that such information must be protected, and used only in certain ways.

Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory government agencies

Commonwealth and ACT government agencies are required to comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act in so far as they relate to Commonwealth and ACT government agencies. In general, this means complying with the requirements of the 11 Information Privacy Principles (IPPs).

Interestingly, the ACT also has the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997 which covers health records held in the public sector in the ACT and also seeks to apply to acts or practices in the private sector not covered by the Privacy Act. There is no such legislation dealing separately with the handling of health information at the Commonwealth level.

The Privacy Act requires that an agency entering into a contract with a service provider (whether private sector or otherwise) must take contractual measures to ensure that a contracted service provider does not do an act, or engage in a practice, that would breach an IPP if done or engaged in by the agency. If an individual considers that the contractor has breached their obligations in the handling of personal information about them, they may make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner who has jurisdiction to directly investigate the actions of the contractor.

Individuals may apply for access to personal information held about them by a Commonwealth or ACT Government Agency either under the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), but the Privacy Commissioner has accepted that most agencies will deal with such requests in accordance with the procedures under the Freedom of Information Act, and has not initiated a separate regime for dealing with access requests under the Privacy Act.

Queensland Government Agencies

Until 1 July 2009, Queensland government agencies were bound by the requirements of ‘information standards’ which essentially did not have the force of law. As of 1 July 2009, Queensland government agencies are bound to comply with the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) which sets out obligations similar to the IPPs mentioned above for most agencies, and obligations similar to the NPPs for the Queensland Department of Health.

Interestingly, and despite this new regime, Queensland does not have separate privacy legislation to regulate private sector health providers.

Under the Information Privacy Act if a service provider is contracted to provide services to a government agency, and the provider is bound to comply with the provisions of the act under the contract, then it becomes a ‘bound service provider’ for the purposes of the legislation, and it is answerable to the Privacy Commissioner under that legislation, regardless of the fact that it is not originally bound to comply with the requirements of that legislation.

Access to information held about individuals by the Queensland government is now facilitated under the Information Privacy Act. However, if an individual incorrectly makes an application for access under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (the new freedom of information legislation) -- then the relevant government agency must the individual of their error, and ask the individual if they would like to amend their application so that it is made under the correct legislation.

The other States and Territories are covered here:

http://www.cio.com.au/article/318565/it_advocate_privacy_minefield?eid=-601

Quite alarming is the following paragraph at the end of the article.

“Both Western Australia and South Australia are currently without legislative privacy regimes. Various confidentiality provisions cover government agencies in Western Australia and the South Australian government has issued an administrative instruction requiring its government agencies to generally comply with a set of IPPs.”

With the current plans for legislation surrounding the IHI etc it seems we have a few hurdles to cross first! It is very hard to know how what the Commonwealth is planning can be expected to remedy this mess other than a full legislative override of all State Health Information Privacy regimens.

My comments on the request for submissions are found here:

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2009/07/commonwealth-department-of-health.html

The Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner has also commented. This – with my comments can be found here:

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2009/08/privacy-commissioner-administers.html

I understood the submissions on this topic were all to be made public, but I have not seen them yet. If you have please provide the URL as a comment.

It will be very interesting to see what the final legislation looks like!

David.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Talk About the Ignorant Consulting the Uninformed.

I spotted this page from the Commonwealth the other day which purported to be consulting on the e-Health aspects of the NHHRC Final Report.

e-health

National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission Fact Sheet

Electronic health records are one of the most important opportunities to improve the quality and safety of health care, reduce waste and inefficiency and improve continuity and health outcomes for patients.

A person-controlled electronic health record

A person-controlled electronic health record should be available for each Australian – as one of the most important systemic opportunities to create person-centred health care and improve quality and safety. Giving people better access to their own health information through a person-controlled electronic health record is vital to promoting consumer participation, and supporting self-management and informed decision-making.

By 1 July 2012, every Australian should be able to have and control their own electronic health record with a provider of their choice. People should also be able to approve health care providers and carers to have access to their records.

Privacy in e-health

The Australian Government should legislate to ensure the privacy of electronic health data. Additionally it should be responsible for the development of a national policy and open technical standards framework for e-health.

Encouraging take up of e-health

The payment of public and private benefits for all health and aged care services should be dependent on their ability to accept and provide patient data electronically and this should occur by 2013.

The Australian Government should develop and implement an appropriate national marketing strategy to inform consumers and health professionals about the significant benefits and safeguards of the proposed e-health model.

What do you think?

The Government is undertaking a series of face-to-face consultations and is using this website to seek the views of Australians on these and other options.

What do you think? Tell us at a consultation visit or complete the Tell us what you think form to provide your views.

These views will be compiled and reported to Government prior to deciding what health reform should be undertaken.

Individual responses will not be posted to the views provided on this site.

More information

This is a summary of some of the major recommendations of theNational Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Full recommendations can be found in A Healthier Future For All Australians – Final Report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission – June 2009

----- End Page

The page is found here:

http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/E-Health

Now hang on just a moment!

Here is what the NHHRC recommended on E-Health.

Implementing a national e-health system

We recommend that, by 2012, every Australian should be able to:

  • have a personal electronic health record that will at all times be owned and controlled by that person;
  • approve designated health care providers and carers to have authorised access to some or all of their personal electronic health record; and
  • choose their personal electronic health record provider.

We recommend that the Commonwealth Government legislate to ensure the privacy of a person’s electronic health data, while enabling secure access to the data by the person’s authorised health providers.

We recommend that the Commonwealth Government introduce:

  • unique personal identifiers for health care by 1 July 2010; unique health professional identifiers (HPI-I), beginning with all nationally registered health professionals, by
    1 July 2010;
  • a system for verifying the authenticity of patients and professionals for this purpose – a national authentication service and directory for health (NASH) – by 1 July 2010; and
  • unique health professional organisation (facility and health service) identifiers (HPI-O)
    by 1 July 2010.

We recommend that the Commonwealth Government develop and implement an appropriate national social marketing strategy to inform consumers and health professionals about the significant benefits and safeguards of the proposed e-health approach.

Ensuring access to a national broadband network (or alternative technology, such as satellite) for all Australians, particularly for those living in isolated communities, will be critical to the uptake of person-controlled electronic health records as well as to realise potential access to electronic health information and medical advice.

We recommend that the Commonwealth Government mandate that the payment of public and private benefits for all health and aged care services depend upon the ability to accept and provide data to patients, their authorised carers, and their authorised health providers, in a format that can be integrated into a personal electronic health record, such that:

  • hospitals must be able to accept and send key data, such as referral and discharge information (‘clinical information transfer’), by 1 July 2012;
  • pathology providers and diagnostic imaging providers must be able to provide key data, such as reports of investigations and supplementary information, by 1 July 2012;
  • other health service providers – including general practitioners, medical and non-medical specialists, pharmacists and other health and aged care providers – must be able to transmit key data, such as referral and discharge information (‘clinical information transfer’), prescribed and dispensed medications and synopses of diagnosis and treatment, by
    1 January 2013; and
  • all health care providers must be able to accept and send data from other health care providers by 2013.

We recommend that the Commonwealth Government takes responsibility for, and accelerates the development of a national policy and open technical standards framework for e-health, and that they secure national agreement to this framework for e-health by 2011-12. These standards should include key requirements such as interoperability, compliance and security. The standards should be developed with the participation and commitment of state governments, the IT vendor industry, health professionals, and consumers, and should guide the long-term convergence of local systems into an integrated but evolving national health information system.

We recommend that significant funding and resources be made available to extend e-health teaching, training, change management and support to health care practitioners and managers. In addition, initiatives to establish and encourage increased enrolment in nationally recognised tertiary qualifications in health informatics will be critical to successful implementation of the national e-health work program. The commitment to, and adoption of, standards-compliant e-health solutions by health care organisations and providers is key to the emergence of a national health information system and the success of person-controlled electronic health records.

With respect to the broader e-health agenda in Australia, we concur with and endorse the directions of the National E-Health Strategy Summary (December 2008), and would add that:

  • there is a critical need to strengthen the leadership, governance and level of resources committed by governments to giving effect to the planned National E-Health Action Plan;
  • this Action Plan must include provision of support to public health organisations and incentives to private providers to augment uptake and successful implementation of compliant e-health systems. It should not require government involvement with designing, buying or operating IT systems;
  • in accordance with the outcome of the 2020 Summit and our direction to encourage greater patient involvement in their own health care, that governments collaborate to resource a national health knowledge web portal (comprising e-tools for self-help) for the public as well as for providers. The National Health Call Centre Network (healthdirect) may provide the logical platform for delivery of this initiative; and
  • electronic prescribing and medication management capability should be prioritised and coordinated nationally, perhaps by development of existing applications (such as PBS online), to reduce medication incidents and facilitate consumer amenity.

---- End Quote

So what happened to asking about the necessary implementation of the National E-Health Strategy (see the parts in italics that are being ignored). Without that and the associated improvements in governance and leadership there simply won’t be the information to load up the Person Controlled Records.

In my view it is much more important – as a first step – that we conclude the infrastructure work and the provision of quality applications to healthcare providers. Obviously we also still have to address issues like information quality and governance as well.

Similarly the Draft National Primary Care Strategy specifically recommends implementation of the National E-Health Strategy.

Just because it might actually require some investment and some serious management is no reason to just ignore these when seeking public comment. Frankly it is just dishonest and sneaky.

It should be noted I still think applications of penalties via the Medicare system for not sharing information whose quality is yet to be properly validated and that there has not been discussion with providers regarding what is sharable and what is not. It is my belief the timelines in the NHHRC report are just absurdly optimistic.

David.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Here is the Standard of Openness and Transparency NEHTA Must Match.

Regular readers will be aware I am intensely critical of the way NEHTA conducts itself and especially in the way it fails to meet the most basic standards for public organisations in the way of openness and transparency.

It seemed to me it could be pretty instructive to see how the US hands similar issues as a benchmark. This reveals the utter failure of NEHTA in this regard.

As a reference the Health IT Standards Committee is charged under recent US stimulation legislation (The ARR Act) with developing the standardized way forward for US Health IT.

You can also read about the system HIT Policy Committee – mentioned below - (which is similarly august and open) here:

http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1269&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=5&mode=2

The Policy Committee is chaired by Dr David Blumenthal – the US Federal National Coordinator of Health IT.

You will understand the level of these committees when you note they report direct to the Secretary of Health and Human Services who is in Cabinet and reports to the President.

Here is the committee mandate and membership of the Standards Committee.

Health IT Standards Committee (a Federal Advisory Committee)

The Health IT Standards Committee is charged with making recommendations to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (HIT) on standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use of health information. Initially, the HIT Standards Committee will focus on the policies developed by the Health IT Policy Committee’s initial eight areas. Within 90 days of the signing of ARRA, the HIT Standards Committee must develop a schedule for the assessment of policy recommendations developed by the HIT Policy Committee, to be updated annually. In developing, harmonizing, or recognizing standards and implementation specifications, the HIT Standards Committee will also provide for the testing of same by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).

Membership

The HIT Standards Committee’s membership reflects a broad range of stakeholders, including providers, ancillary healthcare workers, consumers, purchasers, health plans, technology vendors, researchers, relevant Federal agencies, and individuals with technical expertise on health care quality, privacy and security, and on the electronic exchange and use of health information.

Chair

  • Jonathan Perlin, Hospital Corporation of America

Vice Chair

  • John Halamka, Harvard Medical School

Members

  • Dixie Baker, Science Applications International Corporation
  • Anne Castro, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina
  • Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer, OSTP
  • Christopher Chute, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
  • Janet Corrigan, National Quality Forum
  • John Derr, Golden Living, LLC
  • Linda Dillman, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • James Ferguson, Kaiser Permanente
  • Steven Findlay, Consumers Union
  • Linda Fischetti, Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Douglas Fridsma, Arizona State University
  • Cita Furlani, National Institutes of Standards and Technology
  • C. Martin Harris, Cleveland Clinic Foundation
  • Stanley M. Huff, Intermountain Healthcare
  • Kevin Hutchinson, Prematics, Inc.
  • Elizabeth O. Johnson, Tenet Healthcare Corporation
  • John Klimek, National Council for Prescription Drug Programs
  • David McCallie, Jr., Cerner Corporation
  • Judy Murphy, Aurora Health Care
  • Nancy J. Orvis, Director, Health Standards Participation, Department of Defense
  • J. Marc Overhage, Regenstrief Institute
  • Gina Perez, Delaware Health Information Network
  • Wes Rishel, Gartner, Inc.
  • Richard Stephens, The Boeing Company
  • Sharon Terry, Genetic Alliance
  • James Walker, Geisinger Health System

Here is a recent listing of meetings and associated material

Past Meetings

To view the webconference, an up-to-date version of Adobe Flash Player is required. To download the latest version for free, visit the Adobe Flash Player Download Center.

The full page is here:

http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1271&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=6&mode=2#Meetings

Note the level of the Committee, its breadth and the transparency of the paperwork provided. Take it from me there are some really serious heavy hitters on this Committee – and it is with this sort of leadership one can actually make progress

Here we have instructions for the public to be able listen to and even watch the meetings.

Health IT Standards Committee Meetings: How to Participate

Webconference:

    • At least 10 minutes prior to the meeting start time, please go to: http://altarum.na3.acrobat.com/HITstandards
      • (If for any reason the link does not work, simply copy and paste the URL into your browser's address bar)
      • Select "enter as a guest"
      • Type your first and last name into the field
      • Click “enter room”
    • Test Your System:
      • You will need to have an up-to-date version of Flash Player to view the webconference. Please test your system prior to the meeting by visiting http://altarum.na3.acrobat.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
      • When running this system test, you do not need to install the Adobe Connect Add-in (step 4 of the test), as that is not relevant to this meeting.

* Please note: Space in the Web conference is limited. If for any reason you are unable to log in, you can still dial in via phone to listen to the audio (numbers below).

Audio:

    • You may listen in via computer or telephone.
      • US toll free: 1-877-705-6006
      • International Direct: 1-201-689-8557
      • Confirmation Code: HIT Committee Meeting

If you have any technical questions, please send an email to webmeeting@altarum.org

Full page is here:

http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1272&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=0&mode=2&in_hi_userid=10741&cached=true

What you have here is how things should be done. A fully funded co-ordinating office for National Health IT within the Federal Government and high level open and accountable advisory committees where meetings are fully publicly accessible.

It is not hard, it just requires the will to involve the whole Health Sector. This sort of openness is just the norm in Washington, but apparently anathema here! I wonder why that is?

David.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Useful and Interesting Health IT News from the Last Week – 20/09/2009.

The Australian E-Health Press provided a good serve this week. It included these:

First we have:

The NHHRC final report: view from the hospital sector

Ian A Scott

eMJA - Rapid Online Publication - 14 September 2009

Abstract

  • The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) report attempts to deal in the short term with hospital access block by funding more beds in emergency departments, while, over the longer term, reforms aim to improve hospital efficiency, transfer care of patients to non-hospital settings, optimise use of outpatient clinics, fund hospital activities on the basis of efficient cost, and improve governance and accountability.

· The single most potentially effective recommendation is the considerable investment in and expansion of subacute and non-acute services, which will free up acute-care hospital beds for urgent cases. Population-based chronic disease management driven by Primary Health Care Organisations can also reduce future hospitalisations considerably.

· What the NHHRC could have dealt with more fully is the need to: (i) prioritise clinical interventions and the need for hospitalisation using evidence of cost-effectiveness obtained from clinical trials and longitudinal patient data; and (ii) move quickly towards funding of all health care by one level of government.

· Even the most effective reforms will not have a significant impact on future bed demand if professional and public expectations remain unsustainably high and do not acknowledge the need to change the role of hospitals within a reconfigured health care system.

More here:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/191_08_191009/sco10877_fm.html

Interestingly we also find the following paragraph in the document.

“Making hospital care more safe and effective

The patient-held electronic health record proposed by the NHHRC will allow busy ED and clinic doctors to more quickly retrieve past history and investigation results and render care safer and more effective. The NHHRC report could have given more emphasis to computer-based clinical decision support systems, referral and triage algorithms, and interprovider information transfer and telecommunication systems designed to make hospital referrals more clinically appropriate and collaborative. Evaluating outcomes of hospital care at a national level using patient-level longitudinal data from various sources (hospital episode of care data, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, death registries, etc) linked by a unique identifier (Medicare number) is welcome, given the benefits of such data.”

My emphasis. Seems most commentators agree that personal health records are at best only a part of what is needed.

Second we have:

Is Brown Qld Health's white knight?

Suzanne Tindal, ZDNet.com.au
15 September 2009 09:12 AM

CIO profile Ray Brown stepped in two weeks ago as the latest chief information officer for Queensland Health, hoping to bring some stability to a division that has seen a number of faces move through the head technology spot in quick succession.

The health department's technology leadership game of musical chairs started in July last year when Paul Summergreene, who had moved over to health in the closing months of 2007 from his CIO position at the state's Department of Transport, left after less than a year in the chief information officer job.

His contract had been terminated, Queensland's Health informed the press at the time. There had been reports that his expenses were being examined, but the department wouldn't comment on the issue.

His position was filled briefly in an acting capacity by the clinically adept Dr Richard Ashby. Ashby had served in several hospitals in emergency medicine and medical administration roles. The Australian Medical Association was pleased of the appointment because of Ashby's clinical experience.

"We have seen millions of dollars in health IT funding wasted over the years in Queensland, so the appointment of a highly regarded senior hospital clinician who is acutely aware of exactly what is required to provide optimal patient outcomes is very welcome," it said at the time.

Yet Ashby didn't remain long, leaving in January to become the executive director and director of medical services at Princess Alexandra Hospital.

Queensland Health again had to fill the void with an interim appointment, reaching into the ranks of its information division. Brown had been acting as the executive director ICT service delivery since June 2008, before which he had been pursuing an IT career in the Queensland public service, holding senior roles in the Police, Corrective Services and the former Department of Families.

Queensland Health may have hit the jackpot this time. Brown hasn't followed the pattern of leaving after only a brief stint on the job. Instead, he was appointed formally to the chief information officer position last week.

And despite much attention being directed at the leadership turmoil, the CIO doesn't believe that it has damaged the long-term technology strategy of Queensland Health.

Since 2006, the IT gurus of Queensland Health have had a mission: to bring the state's hospitals into the modern world of state of the art clinical information systems. Summergreene's predecessor Sabrina Walsh had primed the way by obtaining funding of upwards of $650 million over four years for e-health initiatives.

Whichever leader was in the hot spot, the e-health holy grail was never out of sight, according to Brown. "The e-Health strategy has stood the test of time and remained sound. Each incumbent of the Queensland Health CIO role has built on the direction and progress of the e-Health Strategy without the need to re-visit significant elements of the strategy or the project artefacts delivered," he tells ZDNet.com.au in an interview last week.

When the CIO started in the role in the acting capacity, it had been his focus and it would continue to be so for the next few years, he says.

Around 20 per cent ($243 million) of the funding first made available in the 2007/2008 financial year had been spent, Brown says. The remaining 80 per cent would be spent by 2011/2012.

So far one of the standout successes has been getting an enterprise discharge summary system up and running, a national first, Brown says. The system sees hospital reports go out to GPs who can use them to service outpatients. Brown says, 55,000 summaries have already gone out from 56 hospitals, with June next year seeing 120 facilities being capable of issuing the summaries.

Much more here:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/soa/Is-Brown-Qld-Health-s-white-knight-/0,139023769,339298502,00.htm?omnRef=1337

Given it is already in place this really supports the points I have been making about the over-egging of approaches to simple issues such as discharge summaries being taken by NEHTA. I am pretty sure what Qld Health has done does not implement the NEHTA approach to either content or messaging methodology. Once you have things actually going then you can incrementally improve.

Third we have:

Deal struck on access to patient records

17-Sep-2009

By Michael East

THE Federal Government has backed down on plans to allow Medicare bureaucrats to access patients’ medical records.

The Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament today by the Federal Human Services Minister, Chris Bowen.

The Bill gives Medicare Australia the power to obtain documents from doctors to substantiate Medicare rebates, which includes handing over private and personal patient details if necessary as evidence for auditing of Medicare claims.

Under the earlier draft bill, administrative staff employed by Medicare would have been able to access medical records without the patient’s permission.

However, an 11th hour deal struck between the Federal Government and “key medical stakeholders” means that only “medical advisers” employed by Medicare can view the records.

More here (registration required):

http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/articles/93/0c064093.asp

This is very good – as it sees some sanity return to the management of investigations requiring patient record access.

Fourth we have:

e-Health: Patients Manage Chronic Diseases Better through Enabling Broadband in Australia

Date: 15 Sep 2009 - 23:10

Source: Government of Australia

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, today launched a new e-health project improving chronic disease patient care.

"CDM-Net is a great example of the digital revolution taking place in healthcare as the Government establishes Australia's 21st century broadband foundation," Senator Conroy said.

"Patient care plans are an important part of chronic disease management and providing online and real-time collaboration means they are easier and more effective to use."

"These types of innovations have significant positive implications for the economics of healthcare and patient welfare."

The Minister launched CDM-Net today at Geelong Hospital. The project is a collaboration between Precedence Health Care and partners and received funding under the Government's Clever Networks program.

Trials of CDM-Net in the Barwon South-Western Region of Victoria and the Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia have shown significant improvements in care plan use and collaboration.

More here:

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/28177

I wonder where one can read the evaluations of these trials? I have not seen much to date. Links welcome!

Fifth we have:

Technology closes in on hospital botches

DANIEL HURST

September 14, 2009 - 5:13AM

Queensland hospital managers will be forced to provide feedback to staff members about botched medical procedures when the health department's flawed computer reporting system is upgraded.

The improvements, scheduled to be rolled out by the end of the year, come after a review found health workers were struggling to log clinical incidents and near-misses in the state's hospitals.

Doctors and nurses using the web-based PRIME CI system cannot track the progress of their own reports and receive feedback, according to the Prince Charles Hospital's executive director of medical services, Stephen Ayre.

Dr Ayre, who investigated the handling of incident reports at Bundaberg Hospital in the lead up to the March state election, wrote the system flaws were partly responsible for the "poor feedback" provided to staff.

The review was sparked by allegations hospital management failed to properly deal with dozens of incident reports, including claims an elderly patient died while waiting for an emergency bed and a baby was thrown on the floor.

Full article here:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/technology-closes-in-on-hospital-botches-20090913-fm60.html

Seems to me a working system to handle this area is vital for understanding emerging issues in safety and quality are critical. Should have been in place ages ago.

Sixth we have:

8153.0 - Internet Activity, Australia, Jun 2009

NOTES

INTRODUCTION

  • The Internet Activity Survey (IAS) collects details on aspects of internet access services provided by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Australia.
  • The scope for the June cycle of IAS has been expanded to contain results for all ISPs operating in Australia with more than 1,000 active subscribers at the end of the reporting period (i.e. as at 30 June 2009). Previously in the June cycle, data have only been collected from ISPs with 10,000 or more subscribers at the end of the reporting period.
  • This is an electronic release of Internet Activity, Australia. More detailed and historic information is available in the accompanying datacubes.
  • When comparing historical data care should be taken due to the change in scope to ISPs with more than 1,000 active subscribers.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • At the end of June 2009, there were 8.4 million active internet subscribers in Australia.
  • Digital subscriber line (DSL) continued to be the major technology for non dial-up connections, accounting for 57% (4.2 million) of these connections. However, this percentage share has decreased since December 2008 when DSL represented 63% of non dial-up access connections.
  • Mobile wireless subscribers had the next highest share, increasing significantly from 20% of all non dial-up connections (1.3 million) in December 2008 to 27% (2 million) in June 2009. This represents an increase of 51% over the six month period. (Note that mobile wireless subscriptions to the internet via a datacard or USB modem are included in the scope of this survey, but connections to the internet via mobile telephones are excluded).
  • Northern Territory subscriber numbers continued with an upward trend increasing by 20% since December 2008 to 83,000.
  • The general trend towards higher download speeds continued, with 57% of subscribers now using a download speed of 1.5Mbps or greater, compared with 51% in December 2008.

More details here:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0?OpenDocument

Given the importance of broadband to e-Health it is useful to keep an eye on these figures. The rate of wireless uptake is pretty impressive as are the number of broadband connections overall.

Commentary is here:

Opposition: wireless scrambles NBN plan

DAN OAKES

September 15, 2009

THE explosion in the use of wireless broadband has undermined the rationale for the $43 billion national broadband network, according to the Federal Opposition.

The claim comes as Telstra waits to see what punishment the Government will inflict on it through legislation that BusinessDay believes will be introduced to Parliament today.

The legislation will outline the regulatory measures the Government will impose on Telstra to increase competition as the new network is built.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that the Government will enforce a functional separation of the telecommunications giant's wholesale and retail arms, but will not force it to sell its 50 per cent stake in Foxtel or the high-speed cable network it uses to deliver pay TV.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is likely to be given greater powers to make binding pricing decisions.

More here:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/opposition-wireless-scrambles-nbn-plan-20090914-fnx2.html

Seventh we have:

Baby bonuses claimed for dead people

AAP

September 17, 2009 05:09pm

A MEDICARE worker has been sentenced to four years' jail for using dead people's identities to claim more than $300,000 in baby bonus payments and sending some of the money to relatives overseas.

Bernard Monyenye, 34, pleaded guilty to 24 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception, attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception and sending proceeds of crime to accounts in Kenya, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates.

The Perth court heard Monyenye used Medicare records to claim baby bonus payments and the maternity immunisation allowance, totalling $318,286.70, between June and November last year.

District Court Judge Kevin Sleight described the act as a "grave breach of trust'' and sentenced him to a non-parole period of two and a half years.

More here:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26086963-421,00.html

One wonders why it took so long for these breeches to be detected. Clearly the Department of Human Services and Medicare should be looking closely at this. That Medicare is to operate the IHI service is a worry if this can happen.

Lastly the slightly more technical article for the week:

5 open source project management apps to watch

Five tools to help CIOs and IT project managers keep their projects on-track and on-schedule -- without blowing the budget!

Rodney Gedda (CIO) 14 September, 2009 13:40

Managing projects is hard work at the best of times, but there are a number of free and open source (FOSS) applications available that can help CIOs and other managers streamline the administrative aspects of project management.

CIO found five tools to help CIOs and IT project managers keep their projects on-track and on-schedule -- without blowing the budget:

1. OpenProj

OpenProj is a cross-platform desktop project management application that paints itself as an alternative to Microsoft Project, including file compatibility. OpenProj features Gantt charts, network diagrams (PERT charts) and earned value costing. Parent company Serena Software also offers commercial project management solutions.

URL: http://openproj.org

Licence terms: CPAL

Read about the other 4 here:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/318425/5_open_source_project_management_apps_watch?eid=-219

A useful list to assist get those projects under control!

More next week.

David.