Its always bad to not have competition or choices in the market place, which is now dominated by Epic I work in the Dental education field and Epic is even devouring that now, even though Epic is geared mostly toward the medical environment.
Judy grea$$ed the right wheels at the right time and now Epic is benefitting,
AT comment is absolutley correct, Don't hate the player, hate the game
Industry Longtimer - 4 months ago
I think in the early days Judy and Epic were absolutely the biggest blockers. Less so now.
David Dieterich - 4 months ago
Judy is an American icon and trailblazer in America's healthcare journey. Similar to Ford for automobiles, Cerf and Gates in internet/computers, Simplot to agriculture. Epic has stepped up to participate in the TEFCA framework. As a matter of fact several Epic customers are already exchanging data through the TEFCA framework and I understand many are in the process of going live. How is Oracle doing with TEFCA? Since Oracle is losing customers to Epic this bashing of Judy and Epic sounds like sour grapes. Perhaps competing harder and smarter would be a better use of time & effort than writing articles and disparaging a competitor.
Epic & Judy Faulkner are the biggest obstacle to interoperability but they are also its only hope. We are heading to a world of large health systems, almost all on Epic or moving there. We are sadly not heading towards my hoped-for system of cloud-based hybrid primary care providers who would easily let consumers move their data among them. So most Americans will get their care and have their data amongst the walled-castle health systems that sit on billions in their hedge funds and use Epic to keep the data. So yes, Epic is the biggest obstacle, but if Judy & team can genuinely take the lead in making the Carequality crew et al set the data free, they can be the biggest hope too.
Longtime Clinical_IT - 4 months ago
Ken is engaging in "whataboutism." My company (and prior employers) have done numerous integrations with both Epic and Cerner. We are able to get HL7 clinical integrations live with Epic in a few weeks. It has taken us much longer to accomplish the equivalent HL7 integrations with Cerner. Our Cerner customers tell us it is mostly because they are "waiting on Cerner" to respond to their requests, but to be fair there are hospital IT people also involved with the process.
Not even Epic can be all things to all people, and they offer a way for developers to create apps in harmony with their platform, however they make it harder than it should be to get these published in their marketplace.
I used to think that Judy was the obstacle. However i have completed changed my mind. From a caregiver’s perspective now facing life threatening situations the coordination of care and complete medical records access between in our case hospitals in houston austin kansas city and hawaii has been so much easier on us as patients then trying to stay in synch with providers who are not using epic takes to much time away from whats really important to us at any given time. The peace of mind, coordination of care and all care providers who are using epic is so much better for us. I personally have over 50 years experience in healthcare information systems and even though its Judy’s way or the highway i must concur with Judy’s way.
Ben Loop - 4 months ago
What absolute nonsense. Epic is not responsible for salvaging the failed and unethical and/or delusionally hyperbolic business plans of the health tech ecosystem. The legacy EHR vendors whining as they lost share and said they would change it all around with HIE’s and population health . The “digital therapeutics” companies that would magically get pharmaco’s to fork it over. Terrible execution, disreputable players, failed promises - all taking their chunk out of the providers (many of whom went along for the ride). But it’s gone nowhere, and does nothing - and all the while, little Verona just keeps chugging along and keeping its eye on the ball. Do what you say. Hold yourself (and your customer) accountable. Have a system. Zero pity for the snake-oil salesmen. If they have a good solution, then Epic’s customers can help them get it going. My experience is, once that happens, Epic engages with the same ferocious commitment they apply to their own business, and they waste zero time on “the convergence of the synergistic potentialities of the precision application of breakthrough business models - insert your own AI reference here.”
Will - 4 months ago
I mean, they do use MUMPS still. https://www.reddit.com/r/epicsystems/comments/16nwnyt/is_it_true_that_epic_still_uses_the_mumps/
Samantha Brown - 4 months ago
Of course she is! Epic is creating a walled garden where the only way you can see the flowers is by being part of its ecosystem. My bigger complaint is Faulkner’s (and make no mistake this is her) limiting of access to the data in our own Epic instance through APIs by some of her new rules. Epic is limiting innovation. Then they say use our CRM. Use our Find a Doc. Use our Portal. All which offer horrid user experiences and functions.
Steve - 4 months ago
Epic is not solely to blame for interoperability problems, but their market dominance and their “if you just use everything from us, you don’t need to worry about interoperability” mindset is a root cause. Like the comment above, Epic has a chance to meet the moment and be a real champion for interruptibility, just not sure it is in their DNA.
AT - 4 months ago
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Matt - 4 months ago
After some reflection, I had to vote yes.
Judy and Epic aren't intentionally trying to stifle interoperability, but as the biggest vendor with a locally-fragmented customer base (as US healthcare is) that have their priorities, Epic isn't taking enough of a lead to solve this problem. Epic presents their tools, programs, etc. that other health systems customers can take advantage of, but it needs so much TLC and painstaking configuration and testing. It needs to just work.
There are definitely bigger systemic regulations, issues, required partners, etc. in play, but Epic has the potential to meet the moment and take the lead and make simpler software for this use case and many other use cases.
Wayne Kubick - 4 months ago
Epic's market dominance is certainly a factor, but there are many others as well, such as risk avoidance, cost and human nature in a competitive, capitalist, business environment. To Judy's credit, Epic has been a big supporter of interoperability even as they continue to build competitive advantage.
Its always bad to not have competition or choices in the market place, which is now dominated by Epic I work in the Dental education field and Epic is even devouring that now, even though Epic is geared mostly toward the medical environment.
Judy grea$$ed the right wheels at the right time and now Epic is benefitting,
AT comment is absolutley correct, Don't hate the player, hate the game
I think in the early days Judy and Epic were absolutely the biggest blockers. Less so now.
Judy is an American icon and trailblazer in America's healthcare journey. Similar to Ford for automobiles, Cerf and Gates in internet/computers, Simplot to agriculture. Epic has stepped up to participate in the TEFCA framework. As a matter of fact several Epic customers are already exchanging data through the TEFCA framework and I understand many are in the process of going live. How is Oracle doing with TEFCA? Since Oracle is losing customers to Epic this bashing of Judy and Epic sounds like sour grapes. Perhaps competing harder and smarter would be a better use of time & effort than writing articles and disparaging a competitor.
Epic & Judy Faulkner are the biggest obstacle to interoperability but they are also its only hope. We are heading to a world of large health systems, almost all on Epic or moving there. We are sadly not heading towards my hoped-for system of cloud-based hybrid primary care providers who would easily let consumers move their data among them. So most Americans will get their care and have their data amongst the walled-castle health systems that sit on billions in their hedge funds and use Epic to keep the data. So yes, Epic is the biggest obstacle, but if Judy & team can genuinely take the lead in making the Carequality crew et al set the data free, they can be the biggest hope too.
Ken is engaging in "whataboutism." My company (and prior employers) have done numerous integrations with both Epic and Cerner. We are able to get HL7 clinical integrations live with Epic in a few weeks. It has taken us much longer to accomplish the equivalent HL7 integrations with Cerner. Our Cerner customers tell us it is mostly because they are "waiting on Cerner" to respond to their requests, but to be fair there are hospital IT people also involved with the process.
Not even Epic can be all things to all people, and they offer a way for developers to create apps in harmony with their platform, however they make it harder than it should be to get these published in their marketplace.
I used to think that Judy was the obstacle. However i have completed changed my mind. From a caregiver’s perspective now facing life threatening situations the coordination of care and complete medical records access between in our case hospitals in houston austin kansas city and hawaii has been so much easier on us as patients then trying to stay in synch with providers who are not using epic takes to much time away from whats really important to us at any given time. The peace of mind, coordination of care and all care providers who are using epic is so much better for us. I personally have over 50 years experience in healthcare information systems and even though its Judy’s way or the highway i must concur with Judy’s way.
What absolute nonsense. Epic is not responsible for salvaging the failed and unethical and/or delusionally hyperbolic business plans of the health tech ecosystem. The legacy EHR vendors whining as they lost share and said they would change it all around with HIE’s and population health . The “digital therapeutics” companies that would magically get pharmaco’s to fork it over. Terrible execution, disreputable players, failed promises - all taking their chunk out of the providers (many of whom went along for the ride). But it’s gone nowhere, and does nothing - and all the while, little Verona just keeps chugging along and keeping its eye on the ball. Do what you say. Hold yourself (and your customer) accountable. Have a system. Zero pity for the snake-oil salesmen. If they have a good solution, then Epic’s customers can help them get it going. My experience is, once that happens, Epic engages with the same ferocious commitment they apply to their own business, and they waste zero time on “the convergence of the synergistic potentialities of the precision application of breakthrough business models - insert your own AI reference here.”
I mean, they do use MUMPS still. https://www.reddit.com/r/epicsystems/comments/16nwnyt/is_it_true_that_epic_still_uses_the_mumps/
Of course she is! Epic is creating a walled garden where the only way you can see the flowers is by being part of its ecosystem. My bigger complaint is Faulkner’s (and make no mistake this is her) limiting of access to the data in our own Epic instance through APIs by some of her new rules. Epic is limiting innovation. Then they say use our CRM. Use our Find a Doc. Use our Portal. All which offer horrid user experiences and functions.
Epic is not solely to blame for interoperability problems, but their market dominance and their “if you just use everything from us, you don’t need to worry about interoperability” mindset is a root cause. Like the comment above, Epic has a chance to meet the moment and be a real champion for interruptibility, just not sure it is in their DNA.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
After some reflection, I had to vote yes.
Judy and Epic aren't intentionally trying to stifle interoperability, but as the biggest vendor with a locally-fragmented customer base (as US healthcare is) that have their priorities, Epic isn't taking enough of a lead to solve this problem. Epic presents their tools, programs, etc. that other health systems customers can take advantage of, but it needs so much TLC and painstaking configuration and testing. It needs to just work.
There are definitely bigger systemic regulations, issues, required partners, etc. in play, but Epic has the potential to meet the moment and take the lead and make simpler software for this use case and many other use cases.
Epic's market dominance is certainly a factor, but there are many others as well, such as risk avoidance, cost and human nature in a competitive, capitalist, business environment. To Judy's credit, Epic has been a big supporter of interoperability even as they continue to build competitive advantage.