I thought it was ironic though that the preceding hour CCHIT demonstrated how they have leveraged open source community created components to build their testing software. They saved a huge amount of money using 'our' (Mirth etc) software but then are turning around and charging 'us' for the product of that work.
Mark had said that it would not be fair for the commercial companies to pay for the open source companies but I think it is the business model that is unfortunate not necessarily their intentions. SureScripts-RxHub, clearing houses and other software companies provide free certification and it sounded like the previous CCHIT certifications have been done very cheaply - webex sessions just 'showing' the software 'works' and emailing data back and forth. If a discounted certification that does not require special sponsorship is not forthcoming then I would agree that alternative measures - whether self-certification or development and promotion of an Open Source certification that is free may be the way to go. I would not underestimate the number of physicians we could gather to participate in such an effort. Greg -- Gregory Caulton Principal at PatientOS Inc. personal email: caulton...@gmail.com http://www.patientos.com corporate: (888)-NBR-1EMR || fax 857.241.3022 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Mark Spohr <msp...@nnk.com> wrote: > > > Thanks to Fred and Tim for their thoughtful comments. > I think we have a good understanding of the situation. It is good that > the CCHIT people are listening but FOSS needs a solution that will > work today. I think that Tim's suggestion has merit. We should have > the option to self certify software and let the market sort out > winners and losers. It is anti-competitive to have a monopoly > gatekeeper. > If CCHIT does not recognize self-certification then we should just do > it ourselves. They could try to block this by claiming copyright, > trademark or legislative authority but all of these lie on shaky legal > ground. Depending on how vigorously they defend their "rights", they > could make life difficult so it would be best to try to reach some > sort of accommodation. They are not likely to respond quickly to our > needs so it may be best to pursue a self-certification path along with > negotiations with CCHIT. If they do respond positively, then the > self-certification work could be used as the foundation of a CCHIT > self-certification label. If not, we could move forward indepently > with a FOSS certified label. > > All the best > Mark > > On 4/13/09, Tim Cook <timothywayne.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote: > >> > >> > >> Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." > > > > Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective. > > > > It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by > > their rules. > > > > They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of > > the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it. > > > > I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT > > comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at: > > > > http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > > > > > -- > > Timothy Cook, MSc > > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > > Skype ID == timothy.cook > > ************************************************************** > > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > > ************************************************************** > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Mark Spohr, MD >
