David Guest wrote:
While MA [Medicare Australia] continue to require signing with one of their
individual certificates I can't see how replacing HeSA key use in Argus makes
sense. GPs need their location keys for Medicare Online, and seems to be no
problem.
I think the model is pathology transmission. Doctors usually don't need the
government to tell them who they are and the rest they can sort out for
themselves.
The myriad approaches to secure messaging seem to ignore this issue, but to
get most GPs and specialists on-board it seems pretty important to me.
I hope Argus is listening.
David
Argus is listening and we commit to continue listening. Your views are
seen as good litmus/indicator. The lack of response or participation in
the discussions are only a result of keyboard burnout by the end of the
day,plus no time during the day.
We have also been quietly doing things as we do appreciate the issues.
We are actively encouraging specialists to communicate with GPs in a
number of areas around Australia and our change in policy to make Argus
free to specialists was designed to remove one of the major barriers
that we struck. ie GPs were reluctant to urge specialists to send them
electronic reports if it was going to cost the specilaist money and yet
the GP got the most benefit and he got it free. GPs now feel no
reluctance to recommend Argus because there is little financial impost
on the specilaist. More or less and arguement of "it doesnt cost me
much, I might as well do it to keep my GPs happy". Now we have
communities of GPs around Australia actively canvassing their
specialists to get them over to using electronic communication, and some
of these specialists simply use MSWord (I can hear your hiss-boo-gasps
from here) to send their letters via Argus using the automated templates
and interface.
For some time now we have been grappling with the HeSA key issues and to
just get encrypted email going we have permission to distribute special
HeSA encryption key pairs just for Argus clients. This is not the whole
answer, but is a good interim step and removes the big '100 point check
barrier' for people getting their feet wet in electronic communication.
The signing of specialist referrals is still worrying me because the
main legal demand for this is the Medicare Act that requires referrals
to be signed and hence is under the control of the HIC. We have spent
many hours discussing this and related issues and are committed
advancing it.
We are also very cognisant of the pathology sector and its strong
influence; one: because they have been early adopters of electronic
messaging and have a wealth of experience, but two: because they
represent the largest user of electronic messaging in healthcare and
will probably continue to grow this area faster than anyone else and
three: their capabilities are focussed very much on producing tangible
results rather than being distracted with policy, politics or
jurisdictional demarcations. Our contacts with the rest of the private
pathology industry are growing and we would be keen to see the private
pathology industry take a mentorship/leadership role in advancing the
whole area of electronic messaging that the rest of the healthcare
sector could leverage off. I believe that the pathology industry, if it
has the desire to do so, has the strength, motivation, business
imperatives and expertise to provide as much leadership and mentorship
as NeHTA can for advancing all the pressing issues around electronic
messaging (if not more).
We have been frantic up to the end of last year trying to advance issues
on many fronts and maybe it looks like Argus is in the doldrums from
where you are looking. Apologies for that, and as Oliver Frank says; we
should communicate more. I will think on a way to do that without
annoying everyone with stuff that may be accused of 'marketing'.
Happy New Year
cheers
Ross Davey
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
