In the last week there has been a lot of press commentary about the appointment of the new NEHTA CEO. All well and good but equally there have been some worrying comments from the old acting CEO as well.
The four that struck me were the following in discussion about the Stakeholder Reference Forums that have recently been conducted and the conflation of that with the planned IEHR.
From ZDNet we have:
“The Forum was set up in part as a response to a review by the Boston Consulting Group published last year.
Members of the forum signed a non-disclosure agreement which bound them from talking about specific topics, however some information was released.
The major priorities agreed upon at the first meeting were the development of an e-health business case for consideration by the Council of Australian Governments meeting in October this year, as well as devising a five-year plan.
The first major e-health implementations the group wanted NEHTA to focus on were developing systems for electronic discharge summaries, pathology reports, specialist referrals and medication management.”
Full article here (Suzanne Tindal):
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/NEHTA-appoints-new-CEO-/0,130061733,339291719,00.htm
Next again from ZDNET we have:
“Howard said that the gag order was so that NEHTA could share more information, not less, and was in line with normal corporate standards. "NEHTA is a company that has responsibilities and the directors of it have liabilities that any company has," he said.
"It's about being able to engage with members and share budget figures, issues and taking feedback from that forum. There could be a point where we could discuss the inner workings of the company, which means they need to be covered by confidentiality arrangements."
A major challenge for Australia's e-health plans has been achieving consensus amongst state health agencies and medical providers on how to transition away from paper-based systems.
"Today that common vision does exist... Right now there is a focus on high value transaction services and standardising information so that clinicians can access it at the point of care," said Howard.”
Full article here (Liam Tung):
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/NEHTA-denies-stakeholder-gag-/0,130061733,339291756,00.htm
Then we have from the Australian Financial Review:
“The new NEHTA chief executive comes into the organisation as it prepares to submit a business case for a national electronic health record to the Council of Australian Governments next month.
Mr Howard has shepherded the business case through its final stages and Mr Fleming will be briefed on the contents of the document over the coming weeks.”
Full article here (Ben Woodhead):
And from the Australian we have:
Mr Howard said reports that stakeholders taking part in recent reference forums had been "gagged" were untrue.
"In fact, having participants sign non-disclosure agreements means we are able to share NEHTA's inner workings -- all the way to business cases, financial budgets and work programs - with them," he said. "Our intention is to give a greater voice and power to these parties.
"Naturally, NEHTA is a (not-for-profit) company, the owners are the governments of the nation, but there are directors that have direct liabilities just like any other company director. Managing those responsibilities means we have to have these constraints."
Full article here (Karen Dearne):
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24297934-15306,00.html
What is being reflected here in my view is a passion to keep secrets that is totally unjustifiable. I don’t give a hoot whether NEHTA is a company, a trust or actually part of the Government. It is planning to put a major funding proposal to Government (in the form of the Councils of Australian Government - COAG) and is claiming it therefore can say nothing.
This is just rubbish.
No one wants to see the detailed budget spreadsheets. However the public should be provided with the following.
1. A detailed description of what NEHTA is proposing.
2. A broad outline of any planned timetables and implementation plans.
3. Details of the Privacy Impact Statement that has confirmed the plan is privacy protective (Not a promise to do the work after it is funded)
4. In industry impact analysis (who are the winners and losers if the project goes ahead).
5. A broad outline of the projected costs and the value that will derive from going forward.
None of this is commercially sensitive. To provide such information would make sure there is the right amount of accountability, discussion and scrutiny of the plans. Briefing a few selected stakeholders in secret just does not cut it in my view!
Given the CEO change I am hoping for a dramatic improvement in openness very soon. The old way is just not good enough.
Final remark, – also given the CEO change - I would be very surprised if we see anything go to COAG before December 2008 at the earliest.
David.
0 comments:
Post a Comment