I agree that peacehealth has articulated a strong and moving healthcare IT manifesto. These are noble goals indeed. One thing that was stressed in the articale was the need to integrate the payers in the design of applications and processes. We shouldn't forget that someone has to pay for healthcare and we have a responcibility to focus on this as much as actual healthcare. Ethical and elegant billing mechanisims are important to physicans and patients because they can reflect personal and business financial well-being or not.
I couldn't agree more.
That's why some of us started this crusade to: 1. Have a DBMS in place that supports *Transactions*, *stored Procedures * and *Triggers* (lets call it *TPT*). 2. Give Care2x a transactional structure and base its financial module in a transactional model, i.e., each operation that potentially could be credited or debited should be also coded as a transaction. For that, an in order to keep it manageable, we need a TPT DBMS 3. Adapt a 3rd party well known, open sourced, widely utilized Billing/Ledger/inventory application. That application developers would keep it up to date. Care2x's developers could from time to time contribute some code back to those other developers. Some billing applications were proposed by various Care2x developers and in the end SQL-Ledger appeared as a good candidate, the second best being NORA. 3. Adapt, connect and distribute that billing application as an open sourced, robust, and credible Financial Care2x module.
That way we would have a lot more Hospital appeal, as we would have then the golden 3 modules working: a) Clinical Module (what we have now is quite acceptable) b) Administrative Module (what we have now are some interesting and usable modules, although their are a work in progress; we also miss hospital quality control ancillary software) c) Financial Module (we have nothing)
But unfortunately reality has shown that, although everybody is concerned with point c), almost nobody seems concerned with contributing to points 1., 2., 3., and 4. Is that so difficult to understand that without 1., 2., 3., and 4. there will be no c) ?
I wonder, is the "craving" for c) in any way related to the fact that that module is what hospital administrators are asking for... and willing to pay for?
Best Regards,
J. Antas
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Care2002-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/care2002-developers
