david derauf wrote: > > HIMSS launches task force for national health information network > > October 17, 2002 > > The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society yesterday > announced a task force charged with developing plans for a national health > information infrastructure (NHII). The task force is intended to help health > care leaders develop a "comprehensive system capable of providing > trustworthy information to all health care decision makers," HIMSS > announced. > > The National Health Information Infrastructure Task Force will first examine > the current state of health care information technology and identify areas > for development. The group is also charged with developing a prototype NHII > and incorporating feedback from HIMSS members and other health care leaders. > Task force members come from organizations including Cerner, the Medical > Records Institute and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (HIMSS release, > 10/16). > > The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, an advisory body to > HHS, is also examining ways to develop a NHII. In December 2001, NCVHS > released a report that outlined ways that government, industry, advocacy > groups and consumer organizations could work together to build a health > information system (NCVHS report, December 2001).
Note the essential difference between the NCVHS plan and the proposed HIMSS plan. The aim of the former is to build a national infostructure which improves capacity to improve health status and obtain better health outcomes, whereas the latter will be a plan for making the delivery of healthcare services more efficient - which is not quite the same thing and more a B2B network. Am I correct, or just overly cynical? Or is it possible to build infostructure which serves both ends? As an outsider, I suppose I am fishing for a better understanding of the motivations of HIMSS. Tim C
