The Opposition Is Not Pleased With What Is Going On in E-Health. Here Is The Latest Press Release.

The following press release has just appeared from Senator Sue Boyce, Senator for Queensland.

LABOR’S E-HEALTH PLANS VANISH

March 23, 2012

Despite assurances from Health Minister Plibersek that the Government e-health system will start on July 1 this year, the legislation to enable this still hasn't been debated and passed by the Senate.

"The Government's Personally Controlled E-Health Records Bill has just vanished off the face of the earth and wasn't put up by the Government for debate in this last sitting session before the Budget," Senator Sue Boyce said today.

"The very earliest the Bill can be passed now is the week of May 8 to 10, just seven weeks before the PCEHR program is due to start.

"Coalition MPs have been warning the Government for more than 12 months that their start-up date was too ambitious. Now it looks as though Minister Plibersek secretly agrees.

"It's just another example of the shambolic and systemic mismanagement by the Gillard Government. The Government makes a big deal of announcing a date and then scrambles ineptly to meet the deadline irrespective of the quality of their programs.

"The Coalition has argued that the July 1 2012 timetable is foolish and even dangerous. Expert evidence from clinicians, privacy organisations and the medical software industry is that neither the processes nor the systems have been adequately tested before being unleashed on the public and there are a huge range of problems which need to be ironed out.

“A recent all party Senate committee inquiry into the Government’s proposed legislation that would enable the July launch of the PCEHR was highly critical of it and in a minority report, Coalition senators urged the government to withdraw the legislation and postpone the launch of PCEHR by at least twelve months,” said Senator Sue.

“Well it seems the Government has accepted our advice by default.

"The Government have spent at least $467 million and some would argue even more on the nation’s transition to an E-Health system and yet four years later we have almost nothing to show for it.

“The Coalition wholeheartedly supports the creation of national E-Health system, in fact it was Tony Abbott as Health Minister who first got the idea off the ground but under Labor it has become a program without substance, expenditure without result,” said Senator Sue.

“A properly developed e-health system would save Australia billions of dollars but under Labor it has just become another way to waste taxpayer’s money.

-----

Passed on for information.
Also - A little bird has told me Mr Gonski has resigned as NEHTA Chairperson.
As one wit just put it to me:
"So no Boss, no budget no legislation, no product, no PCEHR and no future"
Oh dear! Awaiting confirmation of the rumour of course at this point.

David.

The Cognitive Dissonance Coming from DoHA Just Got A Lot Worse. I Am Not Sure They Get It.

The following popped up earlier today.

GPs key to e-health success: Plibersek

• by: Karen Dearne
• From: Australian IT
• March 22, 2012 5:30AM

HEALTH Minister Tanya Plibersek wants GPs to take a lead role in reforming healthcare through the adoption of e-health systems.

"E-health is an important area with great potential to improve the convenience and quality of care for patients," she told a conference for GPs in Canberra.

"It's also an area where the government is keen for GPs to take a lead role."

Ms Plibersek said the government would start to roll out the personally controlled e-health system from July this year.

"Over time, the system will join the dots electronically between GPs, pharmacists, specialists, allied health professionals, hospitals and patients," she said.

"E-health records will mean easier and faster access to patient information.

"GPs will spend more time delivering services and talking to patients, rather than chasing patient records."

Leading medical groups have been calling for government funding and support to assist the adoption of the PCEHR system, but the government has previously ruled out rebates to cover the cost of creating and maintaining records on behalf of patients.

In a joint statement this month, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian General Practice Network and three rural doctors' organisations, unanimously "expressed concern about the lack of preparation for practical implementation" before the July 1 start-date.

The full article is here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government/gps-key-to-e-health-success/story-fn4htb9o-1226306379300

At the same time we have the Department of Health Secretary out and about wanting a measured uptake.

DoHA expects ‘measured’ PCEHR adoption rate

Posted Wed, 21/03/2012 - 23:18 by Mark Jones

The federal government’s incoming ehealth System Operator has revealed she is expecting consumers will not rush to sign up for personally controlled electronic health records, and has not set target rates for adoption.

Jane Halton, secretary at the Department of Health and Ageing and PCEHR System Operator from July 1, pending legislation, also said more than 1.4 million consumer identities were registered in the PCEHR system via the wave sites where the ehealth system is being trialled.

Speaking exclusively to eHealthspace.org ahead of her appearance at Health-e-Nation 2012, Ms Halton said: “I do not expect that the entire nation will opt in on 1 July, and actually we don’t want that.”

“What we actually want is for gradual adoption, to have a measured approach to the deployment of ehealth,” she said. However, DoHA will target certain groups for early adoption, such as people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent and people with chronic health conditions, Ms Halton said.

Lots more here:

http://ehealthspace.org/news/doha-expects-measured-pcehr-adoption-rate

Sorry, I am really struggling with the mixed messages. As a commenter said this morning to a previous blog.

“Re the Security/Privacy stipulations for Practices - add this to the draconian OH&S regimen, all the other MBS and "business" stuff that has to be done, and when exactly do the staff and clinicians actually see patients and do what they trained for? Beggars belief that Government stands up and says they will reduce red tape, and they do this!”

Paul Fitzgerald.

Canberra want fast and slow, to reduce red tape and to add it, involve GPs and punish them and so it goes on all at the same time.

The old saying that someone could not ‘organise a beer fest in a brewery with a fist full of fivers’ seems highly applicable.

The Minister and Bureaucrats need to get out into the real world and stop just making GPs lives more difficult if they want help with such initiatives.

Some cost re-imbursement would also help I suspect.

David.

NEHTA Provides A Final Report On E-Signatures - Useful To Know It Exists.

The following pair of documents popped up a few days ago:

eSignature Release Notification 15/03/2012

Electronic Signatures Final Recommendations 15/03/2012

Here is their description of the release.

Release Notification

Final Recommendations - Electronic Signatures

Final

Introduction

NEHTA is pleased to announce its Final Recommendations for Electronic Signatures on an initial set of clinical document types.

Following research and consultation with stakeholders in 2011, NEHTA’s Electronic Signatures initiative reached national consensus on well-defined mechanisms for clinicians to apply personal electronic signatures to attest to the content of clinical documentation within an eHealth context.

Role

The purpose of this document is to present the agreed recommendations for the signing of clinical documents. The recommendations are intended to be used as a basis for the development of technical specifications, software systems, legislative instruments, and local policies.

Scope

The recommendations apply to clinical documents where the sender and the receiver are in separate and independent healthcare organisations. Different risk profiles (e.g. associated senders and receivers) imply different approaches, which are discussed in detail.

The document contains specific recommendations for the following clinical document types:

• Prescriptions
• Dispense records
• Referrals
• Specialist letters
• Diagnostic imaging requests and reports
• Discharge summaries.

Next Steps

NEHTA has already built support for the recommendations into current technical specifications and will be moving to produce implementation guidance. NEHTA has also commenced work with Commonwealth, state and territory governments to facilitate regulatory approvals in support of the recommendations where appropriate.

NEHTA expects to expand the recommendations to cover other clinical document types as the eHealth programme evolves.

Feedback

NEHTA welcomes feedback on the document, which can be emailed to Kieron.McGuire at nehta.gov.au as can any related questions. Priority areas for feedback include errors of omission or commission, and potential issues affecting patient outcomes or choice.

----- End Announcement.

I have browsed through the associated documents and it seems reasonably clear what is intended.

Basically for most documents in the list above - other than prescriptions and medication records - the level of risk and the need for authentication beyond the use of individual log-on and use of an organisation or personal certificate is seen as adequate.

With medications the risk is assessed as moderate in some circumstances related to prescribed medicines and drugs or abuse or addiction.

Here a NASH Token, time expiring PIN and PKI are recommended.

At first blush I wonder if the approach to minimal / low risk might be a trifle lax and that repeated entry of PINs as well as token use might not be rather frustrating an annoying for the prescribing / dispensing functions.

Time will tell how this works in practice.

On another issue, why is it a Version 1.0 FINAL document? Given that has had no field implementation why is the term FINAL used. Surely Draft for Trial Use and Review would be more sensible. After 2-3 years if it all works out as hoped for Version 2.0 can be Final.

I just don’t get this approach to documentation, especially when comments are sought!
Pretending to be God like and to speak 'ex-cathedra' is not what we should be seeing from such a clearly fallible organisation - think recent pause etc..

David

PCEHR Regulations and Rules Relased - Not Actually - Just A Statement of Intent And Some Considerable Silliness.

I was alerted to this release today.

PCEHR System Regulations and Rules

The PCEHR System: Proposals for Regulations and Rules describes the proposed regulations and rules which will be put in place to support the national personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) system and the legislation which is currently before Parliament. The Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 (PCEHR Bill) and Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 (Consequential Bill) were introduced into the Parliament on Wednesday 23 November 2011.

The paper has been developed by the Commonwealth in consultation with a working group of representatives from Commonwealth, state and territory health departments. It takes account of feedback and submissions received by the Department of Health and Ageing during the public consultation processes for the PCEHR system.

The PCEHR System: Proposals for Regulations and Rules describes the provisions that are proposed to be included in the regulations and rules, explains the reasons behind those proposals and describes how they are intended to operate.

The paper is intended to promote discussion within the community about how well the proposed regulations and rules would operate in conjunction with the PCEHR Bill and Consequential Bill, and support the PCEHR system.

Have your say on the PCEHR System: Proposals for Regulations and Rules via the web submissions form below or email your submission to ehealth.legislation@health.gov.au. Alternatively, you can send your submission to us via the postal address supplied on this page.

Submissions will be made public. Submissions that are intended to remain confidential should be clearly marked as such and submitters should be aware that confidential submissions may still be subject to access under Freedom of Information law.

The closing date for comments and submissions is 5 pm (Australian Eastern Standard Time), Wednesday 11 April 2012.

This page is found here:

http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/pcehr-legals

Here is a direct link to the download file:

http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/039CCE21277B5D3CCA2579A5001AE4F6/$File/Proposals%20for%20regulations%20and%20rules.pdf

Having had a browse a few things struck me.

First the draft regulations are not provided. A description of the intent of the rules and regulations is all we get.

Second the governance framework is still utterly pathetic and amazingly the discussion (On Page 18) seems to suggest only one Health IT expert will be on the Independent Advisory Council. Even worse in addition there is another separate Council just for the States and Territories. Surely just one or two reps on the Advisory Council is all that is needed?

Third the arcane and complex access rules seem to be continuing to be implemented despite the need for close to a PhD to be able to understand and the Provider Access Control Code (PACC) which is a code and PIN will be able to lock a record away from view. Surely it is simpler just not to upload material the consumer sees as so sensitive. (Pages 20 to 26 really make my head hurt!)

 Fourth user identification is based largely on having a verified IHI. Just how that is secured and protected against misuse etc. is not clear. (Page 26).

Here is what a verified IHI means.

A verified IHI is a healthcare identifier in relation to which the HI Service Operator (Medicare) has evidence of an individual’s identity. This evidence may come from being a “known customer” of Medicare or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or from the individual providing evidence of identity such as a passport, birth certificate or driver’s licence to the HI Service Operator. Unverified IHIs are healthcare identifiers that have been created at a healthcare facility where the individual has not yet provided evidence of identity to the HI Service Operator.

Fifth (on Page 27) we have participation requirements. It is here where the colour will drain from the faces of practice managers and their bosses when they see what IT and security responsibilities they have been given.

-----

Proposed arrangements

Risk mitigation

It is proposed that the rules will require that healthcare provider organisations, in order to be eligible to register, must develop, maintain, enforce and communicate to their staff, policies and procedures relevant to their access to the PCEHR system.

The matters that must be addressed by these policies and procedures will include:

• the manner of authorising persons within the organisation to access the PCEHR system, including the manner of suspending and deactivating the account of any authorised person who leaves the organisation, no longer provides a service to the organisation or whose security has been compromised;
• the training that will be provided to persons before they become authorised users, ensuring they have adequate training on how to use the system accurately and responsibly and are informed of their legal obligations;
• the process for identifying a person authorised to access the system and providing identification information to the System Operator, ensuring the organisation is capable of satisfying clause 74 of the PCEHR Bill;
•  the protection and security of IT equipment and related resources from unauthorised access;
• the use of physical and system access controls, such as user identification, passwords and digital certificates, to ensure the person accessing the PCEHR system is known and authorised by the organisation; and
•  mitigation strategies to ensure risks can be identified and acted upon expeditiously.

The organisation must review these policies and procedures on a regular basis to ensure their effectiveness and to identify any new or changing risks. Such reviews must include consideration of factors which might result in:

• any access to the PCEHR system by unauthorised persons;
• any misuse or inappropriate disclosure of information contained within a consumer’s PCEHR by authorised persons; and
• any accidental disclosure of information contained within a consumer’s PCEHR.

In addition, reviews will need to consider any changes to technical specifications and regulatory requirements that have occurred since the previous review.

The policies and procedures must:

•          be in writing and contain sufficient detail to make it clear how the organisation will meet its PCEHR-related obligations;
•      record each iteration resulting from a review;
•          be accessible to employees of the organisation and form part of employees’ training;
•          be auditable in terms of whether the organisation has complied with its policies and procedures; and
•          be provided to the System Operator upon request.

Access control

Particular to the organisation’s access to the PCEHR system, the organisation must implement access and account management practices that ensure all authorised users’ accounts accessing the PCEHR system employ good information security access management practices, including:

• restricting access to those persons who require access as part of their work function;
• uniquely identifying individuals within the organisation’s computer system, and having that unique identity protected by a password or equivalent protection mechanism;
• following good password and access management practices, for example, a minimum length of seven alphanumeric characters for passwords and changing passwords every 60 days;
•  deactivating user accounts for persons no longer authorised (such as if their duties no longer require access to the PCEHR system or where persons are no longer employed by the organisation); and
•  suspending a user account as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the person’s unique identity or password has been compromised.

Consider: Does this proposal, in conjunction with the privacy and security provisions of the PCEHR Bill, adequately support the protection of sensitive health information within the PCEHR system? Does this proposal pose practical difficulties for healthcare provider organisations or their staff? Are there other areas that you consider must be addressed?

-----

Can’t you see providers rushing to take all this on for no compensation or incentive. I can’t.

They will get knocked down in the rush I am sure with people wanting to sign up.

Such silliness and impracticality.

David.

The Senate Community PCEHR Inquiry - Some Reflections and Comments. We Live In Interesting Times!

Well we had the inquiry report released yesterday and by now some of the press have started to provide some commentary.

We have this for example.

Concerns raised over e-health plan

• by: Karen Dearne
• From: Australian IT
• March 20, 2012 10:28AM

THE results of a Senate inquiry into the Gillard government's Personally Controlled E-Health Record Bills have split along party lines, with the Labor majority recommending the bills be passed and Coalition senators calling for a delay until July 1 next year so that unresolved issues can be addressed.

In "additional comments" on the main report, the Greens have recommended five amendments to enhance the legislation, including greater privacy protections.

The PCEHR Bills will now be debated in the senate, following their passage in the lower house last month.

However coalition MPs raised a number of concerns over the PCEHR system and implementation arrangements; they flagged their intention to move amendments to the legislation pending the inquiry outcome.

Both sides report concerns with the performance of the National E-Health Transition Authority, tasked with delivering the system.

While submissions to the inquiry voiced support for a national e-health record system, "submitters identified particular aspects of the proposed system that they suggest require further amendment" before implementation.

"Principal among the issues raised were concerns that the proposed governance structures will not provide adequate transparency and accountability; and a concern that as the level of functionality of the system on implementation cannot be guaranteed, the PCEHR rollout may not be as successful as intended."

The report recommends a review of the operation of the Act in two years' time to "specifically consider the appropriateness of the vesting of the System Operator responsibility in the (Health department) secretary as well as possible alternative governance" structures.

"We are supportive of the aims of an e-health system and recognise that effective implementation will improve patient outcomes, particularly for consumers in rural and remote parts of Australia," it said.

"The committee acknowledges the magnitude of implementing the PCEHR system.

Lots more here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government/concerns-raised-over-e-health-plan/story-fn4htb9o-1226304939750

There is also a report on the Report found here:

Senate Committee gives PCEHR tick of approval

Posted Tue, 20/03/2012 - 12:32 by Josh Gliddon

The PCEHR is set to go ahead following the release of a Senate Committee report giving the controversial electronic record the legislative thumbs up.

Although the Senate hearings, which took place in February, were characterised by criticism of the healthcare record and of NEHTA, the Senate Community Affairs Committee also found there was widespread community and institutional support for the ehealth transformation of Australia’s healthcare system. Despite the Committee’s support, however, its report also noted concerns about governance, transparency and privacy. 

Lots more here, with a discussion of Opposition concerns at the end of the article.

http://ehealthspace.org/news/senate-committee-gives-pcehr-tick-approval

We also have this:

Delay launch of PCEHR for a year - Senators

20 March, 2012 Michael Woodhead

With only three months to go before the launch of the PCEHR, opposition Senators say the rushed program faces too many problems and unanswered questions and should be delayed for a year.

A Senate inquiry into the PCEHR program has divided along party lines, with the Opposition saying the short timeframe for implementation is unrealistic and that there are still unresolved issues around patients being unable to control who has access to their records,  governance and the complex infrastructure of the system.

Even government Senators acknowledged there were major concerns over implementation of the PCEHR system, and noted that most stakeholders preferred an opt-out system rather than the current opt-in model.

.....

They suggest that the PCEHR legislation be deferred until July 2013.

In a 6minutes website poll 84% of the 166 respondents have said they are not prepared to offer the PCEHR on its launch date of July 1.

Full article here:

http://www.6minutes.com.au/news/latest-news/delay-launch-of-pcehr-for-a-year---senators

The poll result is very interesting indeed.

As far a general comments are concerned here are mine.

First it is clear that NEHTA has not gained the trust of either the Government or Opposition as far as the PCEHR is concerned and that the Senior Executive of NEHTA should consider their position(s). The parliament represents the people and this lot have simply failed. This view is reflected in many parts of the report. I have pulled them out here:

http://www.aushealthit.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/outcome-of-senate-inquiry-into-pcher.html

Second I believe that no one has asked and certainly no-one has answered the six questions I raised regarding the PCEHR in my Submission. Unless we know the why the PCEHR, is there real evidence to support doing it, is it really safe, can security and privacy really be protected etc. (see AusCERT material from the last few days) ferreting around in the minutiae of NEHTA vs MSIA will have us all loose.

Each of these questions needs proper detailed and convincing responses. Lack of response to these issues really makes the report, in some ways, a bit of a sideshow - rather than the main game. We should be asking is the PCEHR justified, will it really work and make a difference and how can we know without a detailed review that has never been done?
Third it is a bit sad the Committee did not engage some experts to sort fact from fiction in all the to and fro of the debate.

Fourth it is hard to reconcile what the Committee was told with the recommendation from the Committee Majority to just ‘pass the bills’ - on a wing and a prayer that all will be great in the end!

Major issues discussed in the majority report were Governance, The Independent Advisory Council, PCEHR Functionality, Opt In vs. Opt Out, Patient Safety, Definitions, Nominated Providers, Privacy and Access

There were 3 recommendations from the Majority members of the committee.

Recommendation 1

2.24 The committee recommends that the review of the operation of the Act that will occur after two years pursuant to Clause 108 specifically consider the issue of the appropriateness of the vesting of the System Operator responsibility in the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing as well as possible alternative governance structures.

Recommendation 2

2.46 The committee recommends that the review of the operation of the Act that will occur after two years pursuant to Clause 108 consider the opt-in design of the system including consideration of the feasibility and appropriateness of a transition to an op-out system.

Recommendation 3

2.85 The committee recommends that the bills be passed.

The Australian Greens were largely supportive save in the area of wanting better access controls and some public health information access.

Australian Greens Recommend

Recommendation 1

1.1 The bill should be clear in section 15 that the ability of consumers to further protect the privacy of their data may be enhanced by the Rules or System Operator.

Recommendation 2

1.2 That section 15 (b) (ii) of the bill be amended to require the System Operator to consult (with the independent advisory council or other community representatives) in the development of default access controls.

Recommendation 3

1.3 That the definition of "healthcare" be amended to include "preventative health".

Recommendation 4

1.4 That the bill be amended to make explicit reference to the use of anonymised, aggregate data from the PCEHR system for research and public health purposes.

The Opposition’s view is pretty clear from the first few paragraphs of the Dissenting Report.

Dissenting Report by Coalition Senators

1.1 The Coalition shares the ambition of health professionals and the Government to develop a quality e-Health system using a Personally Controlled e-Health Record. However we accept the serious and disparate concerns of many witnesses to this inquiry regarding the infrastructure, access controls and governance of the proposed PCEHR and want the introduction of the PCEHR delayed pending major changes.

1.2 There is currently a concerning dissonance between the assurances of the Government and the very real concerns raised by practitioners and experts in the ehealth industry. The Coalition is concerned that the Government's political needs for a "big bang" approach to the introduction of e-health on a given date are being given primacy over common sense.

1.3 The majority of witnesses expressed serious concerns with the process so far and the consequences of the legislation if it were to proceed in its present form and time frame. The four major issues are:

• the functionality and interoperability of the PCEHR
• confidence of consumers and clinicians in a proposed e-health system
• governance and conflicts of interest problems in a system designed to hold the health records of every Australian
•  risk and patient safety.

These four should be the spine of a quality and safe system.

1.4 Given the Labor Government's track record on program implementation, the Coalition fears that poor implementation and governance will occur leading to yet more waste of taxpayers' funds when the system fails.

1.5 Further evidence about patient and systems safety and about NEHTA's overstatement of delivery was presented to Committee members in the final week of the inquiry. The information will be made public once responses to adverse comments in the evidence have been received. This evidence further deepens the Coalition's concerns about this Government's ability to deliver a functional and safe e-health system.

----- End Extract.

The Coalition also had concerns regarding, access, privacy, timing and liability at the very least.

Here is their conclusion and recommendation.

Conclusion

1.47 That so many fundamental issues are yet to be resolved a little over three months from launch after six years of development and the expenditure of between $467 and $750 million must be a matter of great concern.

Recommendation:

1.48 Coalition senators recommend that the PCEHR legislation be delayed until July 1, 2013, in order to satisfactorily address the many issues raised during this Inquiry, especially those relating to governance, patient risk, privacy and interoperability are resolved.

So there we have it.

It will be fascinating to see what actually now transpires. I wonder might the Minister decide that the best course is to follow both sets of recommendations. Pass the legislation and defer the start while things get sorted out and something can be done to have NEHTA regain the confidence of the Parliament.

We do live in interesting times!

David.

Outcome Of the Senate Inquiry Into The PCHER Legislation. Split Decision On Rate of Proceeding and NEHTA Takes A Whack from Both Sides.

Here is where you can find the full report.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=clac_ctte/pers_cont_elect_health_rec_11/report/report.pdf

A few fun quotes (I will read more closely tomorrow). Italics (mine) on some NEHTA quotes.

Majority Report:

Selected quotes

Page 14:

2.17 Throughout the course of the committee's inquiry concerns have also been raised about the effectiveness of the National eHealth Transition Authority (NEHTA), the corporation responsible for the design and roll out of the PCEHR system. As these issues do not go to the substance of the bill they will not be covered in the committee's report. However, the committee considers that the level of criticism warrants attention.

Page 16:

2.22 The Medical Software Industry Association (MSIA) also 'believes the System Operator (as described) is impossibly conflicted with roles as System Operator, System funder, and NEHTA Board Member.'

Page 28:

2.56 The committee takes the view that issues of safety are critical to the success of the PCEHR system's implementation. The committee notes the concerns that were NEHTA explaining the processes that have been implemented to ensure that issues of safety are addressed in the design and deployment of the PCEHR system.

2.57 The committee considers that the information it received throughout the inquiry suggests there is a level of confusion among stakeholders. The committee appreciates the information that it has received to clarify these issues throughout its inquiry, and recommends that the Commonwealth and NEHTA ensure that this information is fully available to stakeholders.

Committee view

2.84 The committee is supportive of the aims of an eHealth system and recognises that effective implementation will improve patient outcomes, particularly for consumers in rural and remote parts of Australia. The committee acknowledges the magnitude of implementing the PCEHR system. It asks the government to consider carefully the evidence received during this inquiry, particularly in relation to NeHTA's capacity to deliver on the timeframes that have been set.

Recommendation 3

2.85 The committee recommends that the bills be passed.

Dissenting Report by Coalition Senators

Page 41:

1.5 Further evidence about patient and systems safety and about NEHTA's overstatement of delivery was presented to Committee members in the final week of the inquiry. The information will be made public once responses to adverse comments in the evidence have been received. This evidence further deepens the Coalition's concerns about this Government's ability to deliver a functional and safe e-health system.

Page 43:

NeHTA Structure and Transparency

1.17 Coalition senators accept evidence that the very structure of the project manager, NEHTA, is inimical to transparency, good governance and responsiveness to consumer and stakeholder interests and proper engagement. As NeHTA is not subject to the standard Government accountability processes, including FOI, this has led to perceived culture of secrecy and a lack of responsiveness to key stakeholders around strategic issues.

Page 50:

Conclusion

1.47 That so many fundamental issues are yet to be resolved a little over three months from launch after six years of development and the expenditure of between $467 and $750 million must be a matter of great concern.

Recommendation:

1.48 Coalition senators recommend that the PCEHR legislation be delayed until July 1, 2013, in order to satisfactorily address the many issues raised during this Inquiry, especially those relating to governance, patient risk, privacy and interoperability are resolved.

----- End Extracts.

The bottom line is as I predicted. The Government wants to steam ahead, the Opposition wants some delay and rethink and the Greens also want some tweaks.

That both Government and Opposition say  NEHTA’s capacity needs careful review and watching is very interesting indeed. Clearly NEHTA is not satisfying both sides as best one can tell.

David.

Report Has Been Tabled. Now We Have To See It!

This is where it should appear.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=reports.htm

David.

The Senate Is Not Moving Quickly!

Hard to know if we will see any outcome from the PCEHR Inquiry this evening.

The Minerals Resources Rent Tax is having every man and his dog want to have their say!

Will post when I know anything.

David.