|
 |
From: Edmund Billings <edmund.billi...@medsphere.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:35:09 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 22 2009 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
The devil will be in the details. But, they appear to have istened and have openned new avenues that may let the market decide while letting the industry innovate and evolve.
Bottomline is the EHR- S, site certification of meaningful use. If the government is going to make incentive payments for meaningful use, they are going to have to get proof; reports or audits on the actual extent of use, e.g. % of physicians doing CPOE. Having the comprehensive product or modular certification may protect the buyer, but it does not certify use. The Leapfrog Group's survey data showed that the product did not correlate with use or quality results. Only the specific implementation did. The same product in two different settings could radically different results. They recommended the implementations themselves be certified. As Matt King said, "the same tool can be used to build a church or a brothel".
While this path to certification was positioned for sites that had homegrown systems, what does that mean and how will it be defined? In the software as a service and open source worlds today, where do you draw that line? This one of those develish details to keep an eye on.
Edmund
________________________________
It appears that we have nothing but either positive comments or questions about what happened.
Rather than try and accurately summarize, I would prefer to link in the pdf that CCHIT created to cover the new certification model.
My inaccurate summary:
They will no longer require updated certification based on version changes.
-FT
--
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||