Interoperability is now a business issue, not a technology issue. The (mandated by MU) standards are in place so that all participants who want to interoperate can do so. Why haven't more wanted to? Competition! If IDN A and IDN B are slugging it out in a city, both are trying to capture the same patient population. While IDN A and IDN B could share their patient records, if they did they would lose a competitive advantage. Being able to treat patients for the full range of their care all in the same IDN is a very powerful competitive advantage. So both IDNs talk a good game - sharing data is, after all, a huge benefit to public health - but in the end, as businesses, they have no real incentive to share data. A cynical view, perhaps. But healthcare IS a business.
What makes CommonWell a smart initiative is that it starts with patients electing to participate. Much like mobile banking and omnichannel commerce are the result of consumers electing to co-create a better way, so will electronic health exchange come from consumer engagement. CommonWell understands that getting this right is the key, and this focus will make the difference.
Jane - 9 years ago
I'm expecting they'll have some impact but i'm not holding my breath. no one has cracked US interop not sure Common Well will either unless the market all gets together.
Bob HIT Guy - 9 years ago
CommonWell have the right idea. Their approach has promise but want to see them deploy widely across member installed base. Need more traction to prove the solution.
A health IT guy - 9 years ago
Where CommonWell differs is the fact that there are actual working services that existing and new members can utilize to actually exchange data. CW isn't just another standards body with watered down requirements to fit the lowest common denominator. Because the services are real they have to work in the real world with real HIT vendor systems. It's as close to plug and play as we've gotten in healthcare interoperability so far.
Interop Fan - 9 years ago
We've needed the ability to exchange information for years in this country. What better way than to build it into the EHRs themselves and make it seamless? I hope CommonWell is successful and that Epic will see the light and join too. Let's not make this competitive. Let's make this a national priority!
HIT Geek - 9 years ago
We have seen around 25 years of HL7, ASC X12, DICOM, ASTM , and other standards bodies. And we have seen collaborations like IHE, WEDI, HITSP, Continua, ONC-sponsored FACA committees and the S&I Framework, and US regulatory efforts like HIPAA and MU. Interoperability remains an elusive goal, despite the good-will efforts of many.
What would make one reasonably conclude that yet another alliance would produce different results? To do so sounds like a well-known definition of insanity.
Failure to interoperate has had insignificant risk of negative consequences for the technology producers. Investment in interoperability has had low economic return, compared to proprietary products. Evidence that interoperability produces improved care outcomes, services availability, and costs is sketchy. Firm proposals to correct root causes have become political non-starters, even when the evidence is compelling. I do no expect this hostile climate to change for the next 10+ years.
I fear it will take a pandemic to cause needed changes. That would be when actual lives are lost on a large scale that could be curtailed by nationwide, if not worldwide, health record interoperability. That is the risk that too few want to acknowledge, let alone mitigate.
Interoperability is now a business issue, not a technology issue. The (mandated by MU) standards are in place so that all participants who want to interoperate can do so. Why haven't more wanted to? Competition! If IDN A and IDN B are slugging it out in a city, both are trying to capture the same patient population. While IDN A and IDN B could share their patient records, if they did they would lose a competitive advantage. Being able to treat patients for the full range of their care all in the same IDN is a very powerful competitive advantage. So both IDNs talk a good game - sharing data is, after all, a huge benefit to public health - but in the end, as businesses, they have no real incentive to share data. A cynical view, perhaps. But healthcare IS a business.
What makes CommonWell a smart initiative is that it starts with patients electing to participate. Much like mobile banking and omnichannel commerce are the result of consumers electing to co-create a better way, so will electronic health exchange come from consumer engagement. CommonWell understands that getting this right is the key, and this focus will make the difference.
I'm expecting they'll have some impact but i'm not holding my breath. no one has cracked US interop not sure Common Well will either unless the market all gets together.
CommonWell have the right idea. Their approach has promise but want to see them deploy widely across member installed base. Need more traction to prove the solution.
Where CommonWell differs is the fact that there are actual working services that existing and new members can utilize to actually exchange data. CW isn't just another standards body with watered down requirements to fit the lowest common denominator. Because the services are real they have to work in the real world with real HIT vendor systems. It's as close to plug and play as we've gotten in healthcare interoperability so far.
We've needed the ability to exchange information for years in this country. What better way than to build it into the EHRs themselves and make it seamless? I hope CommonWell is successful and that Epic will see the light and join too. Let's not make this competitive. Let's make this a national priority!
We have seen around 25 years of HL7, ASC X12, DICOM, ASTM , and other standards bodies. And we have seen collaborations like IHE, WEDI, HITSP, Continua, ONC-sponsored FACA committees and the S&I Framework, and US regulatory efforts like HIPAA and MU. Interoperability remains an elusive goal, despite the good-will efforts of many.
What would make one reasonably conclude that yet another alliance would produce different results? To do so sounds like a well-known definition of insanity.
Failure to interoperate has had insignificant risk of negative consequences for the technology producers. Investment in interoperability has had low economic return, compared to proprietary products. Evidence that interoperability produces improved care outcomes, services availability, and costs is sketchy. Firm proposals to correct root causes have become political non-starters, even when the evidence is compelling. I do no expect this hostile climate to change for the next 10+ years.
I fear it will take a pandemic to cause needed changes. That would be when actual lives are lost on a large scale that could be curtailed by nationwide, if not worldwide, health record interoperability. That is the risk that too few want to acknowledge, let alone mitigate.