Comments on: Can CCHIT move beyond PROBLEM EHR certification?

By: Didier Thizy

Didier Thizy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:04:16 +0000

Looking at CCHIT ambulatory requirements from past years, each year they add more requirements to the list. I rarely see anything changed or removed.

Not unlike a software company that adds features of dubious value rather than change or remove existing ones, just so they can justify selling version 10.0, isn’t this an inherent problem with an organization like CCHIT?

While the arguments made about their members potentially buying into PROBLEM EHR model might be also true, it seems like its members will always need to add more requirements to the list in order to justify another version and another year of work.

By: York and stuff » Certification with CCHIT

York and stuff » Certification with CCHIT — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:10:34 +0000

[...] the certification process at large corporate vendors, although progress seems to have been made – Fred Trotter being amongst the legions putting the pressure [...]

By: Reform on the line in meaningful use debate - SmartPlanet

Reform on the line in meaningful use debate - SmartPlanet — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:29:12 +0000

[...] source advocate Fred Trotter writes that CCHIT’s problem is it supports “Proprietary, Rigid, Overweight, Bloated, Loaded, Expensive, and Massive [...]

By: #FAIL! Proprietary EHR Lock In through CCHIT « Crossover Healthcare

#FAIL! Proprietary EHR Lock In through CCHIT « Crossover Healthcare — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:58:06 +0000

[...] consequences of such legislation is highly problematic and well described by David Kibbe, Fred Trotter, Ignacious Valdez, Neil Versel, and others. I have seen CCHIT make great efforts to correct this [...]

By: Benlog » Empowering the Patient vs. Enabling an Artificial Monopoly

Benlog » Empowering the Patient vs. Enabling an Artificial Monopoly — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:03:26 +0000

[...] medical software. As hard as Fred Totter is working to get CCHIT to see the free/open-source point of view, there’s simply no incentive for a [...]

By: Matt Ethington

Matt Ethington — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:04:27 +0000

Fantastic post. It’s often a challenge for me to hear, “Physicians are technology averse.” My take, they’re BAD technology averse or better – they’re stupidity averse. I’ve been to practices with nuclear particle accelerators to treat cancer, advanced blood chemistry, MRI, Digital Xray, Ultrasound… all very light on technology of course.

The market needs to continue to evolve out of the initial PROBLEM emr that has artificially pent up demand and adoption for too long.