How far we have not come

I meet Dr. Koppel at the last Indivo X meeting at Harvard. After hearing about his work I realized… this man must be the one of the saddest people in the industry, it is basically his job to study the interface between people and EHR systems. He is the guy who documents just exactly how EHR systems fail. e-patient Dave is blogging about a talk that Dr. Koppel gave.

EHR software famously under-performs.

As Dr. Koppel points out, from the perspective of the clinicians, the design of the EHR systems are pretty bone-headed. The standard answer from vendors is “we cannot fix that” until they have a financial incentive (like a lost sale or contract) to get something done.

For instance, Dr. Koppel points out that there is problem with the sorting of drug dosages drop down in an EHR. For fun I can show you how it would actually look:

Hard to imagine why the options would be in that order, why doesn’t it look like this?

The reason it looks like this is because the software is sorting alphabetically by written name… you can see it more easily if you write it like this:

But why is this happening at all? Why wouldn’t the software automatically do the right thing? I could imagine several possibilities. Perhaps the dosages are stored as strings and then converted to numerals for display. Perhaps this decision was made because there is a mix of numerical and text data in the doses field of the underlying database. Something like “seven milligrams” and then “seven milligrams time release” or some such. But I do not know. More importantly, Dr. Koppel likely does not know, and the clinicians who have to carefully choose a dose using choosers like this every day… do not know why the system is designed like this. I could be wrong, Dr. Koppel could know… but if he does, it is because he has been told by someone who can read the sourcecode.

I think we should pause at the irony here. If we could name the chief endeavor that modern medicine is undertaking one might say “crack the DNA code”. Our cells are “programmed” with a code that until recently we could not read and that we still cannot comprehend. We are seeing “through the glass darkly” into our own cells for a thousand natural reasons.

However, we tolerate a situation where clinicians see “through the glass darkly” into their own health software. Why? Because the have decided to use proprietary software. Why do they make that choice? It seems so illogical that it makes me dizzy. I wanted to respond specifically to some of the things that were said in the presentation:

Dr. Koppel: Customization is a sales gimmick and not meaningful.

The only way to make customization meaningful is to have full source code access with the right to modify the code running in the hospital.

Problems could be fixed by smart 14 year old.

If and only if they have access to the sourcecode. The insight here is that is a question of  “access” and not “complexity”

Let me take a close look at how open source licensing impacts each of these.

  • Open error reporting… and dissemination – The license gives you permission to publish bug fixes, and by implication the bugs that the fixes… fix.
  • Rapid repairs e-hazard tracking – Same story.
  • Meaningful meaningful use standards – Meeting standards of any kind can only happen when you try, fail and recode.
  • Meaningful evaluation – can only happen when you try different version of the sourcecode, and perform studies on which version works best.
  • Focus on clinical needs 1st and back office 2nd – Ha! Cannot say that the software license will change your basic motivation.
  • Interoperability for a clinical setting – Interoperability can only be achieved by coding to another code, this is what the project Laika
  • Certification as more than a sales strategy and sinecure – Certification is a poor workaround to not getting at the sourcecode. If you do not have access, certification is making promises it cannot really verify.
  • The simple reality is that the funding from ARRA will go towards installing software that will stagnate and rot in the hospitals and clinics across America precisely because clinicians do not understand the implications of software licensing. Dr. Koppel focuses on “the software contract” which is mostly an irrelevant afterthought. Unless the software license allows you to fire the software vendor and get one that will reorder your lists correctly, the contents of the software contract are irrelevant. The right to fire in an Open Source software license has teeth. It changes the power dynamic in ways that the contract cannot.

    My grandfather once told me never to play another mans game. “If his game is pool, play him in chess. If his game is chess… play him in pool.” Clinicians are losing the software game again and again, they need to stop playing the game that has been setup by the proprietary software vendors.

    -FT

    Many Eyeballs Actually Looking: Microsoft’s Shawn Hernan responds

    One of the things that I love about blogging is that it often puts you directly touch with those people who are influencing your thinking. This is just what happened when Microsofts Shawn Hernan sent me an email response to my recent blog post about the security of Open Source Healthcare Software. As it turns out, he also spent some time at the Air Force Information Warfare Center in San Antonio, we probably passed each other in the hall at some point.

    Shawns original article,  Microsoft’s Many Eyeballs and the Security Development Lifecycle had spurred me both to kibitz some of his points, and to consider their implications in Open Source healthcare software.

    Shawn wrote the following to me and gave me permission to quote him here:

    I saw your comments on my blog, and just wanted to write a quick note to thank you for the positive comments and the constructive and reasonable criticism.

    It is of course unfair to lump all open source projects under one umbrella, and I regret leaving that impression. The various fights that people have over the different open licenses is all the evidence that anyone needs to see to realize that the only thing that many FOSS projects have in common is their “FOSSness.” And it’s clearly true that there is some highly competitive FOSS software.

    I also like your characterization of “the game” for developers. I ran the security training program at Microsoft for a while, and while it was successful, I quickly learned that a corporate training program leaves a lot to be desired. We have a team called “Engineering Excellence” and they turned me on to the ideas of human-performance management, and I wrote about some of my experiences here: http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/05/29/sdl-training.aspx. I think this is not too far from your idea of “the game” as I understand it.

    I will quibble some with your ranking, though, and the implicit assumption that Microsoft is all a single culture. While the cultures differ from team to team (Windows v Office v SQL), all the big teams have a security-obsessed subculture and are all subject to at least the minimum SDL requirements, and I feel confident in saying that all our teams are at the very least competitive with the best open-source projects. I would invite you to look at the security track records of SQL Server, vs. MySQL for example.

    But I do agree that the #6-style vendors may try to adopt my argument; I’m not trying to claim that proprietary software  is inherently more secure than open source, but merely trying to challenge the meme that openness, all by itself,  conveys  magic security properties.

    I agree with Shawns point here. The meme that openess all by itself is a magic bullet for security improvement is dangerous precisley because it interferes with “games” that can make Open Source more secure.

    When someone says “The Many Eyeball effect” the right counter should probably be, “The Many Eyeballs Actually Looking”. Secure Open Source does not happen because people merely can look, it happens when they use their rights under the license to actually take a look. Openess is a critical first step in the process, but only the first step. Often, as I look at how money is being spent in Open Source in healthcare, I see far too little being explicitly spent of efforts to make things more secure. I think part of the reason is that people just assume that it will happen. When it doesnt you end up with insecure code that people trust more, because it is open.

    I hope it is clear why this is an especially bad problem for Open Source Health Information Software. People really need to be able to rely on Health Information being private. There are two reasons for this. First, it could actually hurt someone if their health information got out. Second, our culture reacts really poorly to violations of trust, and, even if a software developer is not directly at fault for private information getting out, the reputation consequences are very serious.

    Our community has already been damaged by this effect. The VA’s reaction to security breaches was part of the motivation for centralizing VistA development, which has lead to a serious stagnation in VistA development within the VA. The current VA administration is slowly reversing many of those decisions and opening development back up, but “security drama” has already seriously damaged VistA development.

    We should be listening carefully to Shawn here. His point is, very simply, that merely being Open Source does not ensure security. We need to find a way to create a “game” for Open Source healthcare developers that automatically improves security. Without some kind of built-in incentives, we run the risk of creating trust without justification. We need to take page from Microsofts book here, at least to a certain extent.

    We need to work to convince those of us who are “feature-focused” to balance that with a “security-focus” if we are to be succesful long-term.

    -FT

    Security Reviews in Open Source Health Software

    Recently, Shawn Hernan wrote a piece on Microsoft’s security blog that argues that the “many eyeballs’ effect does not ensure that open source software is secure.

    His argument is excellent and while I disagree somewhat with his conclusions, his point is undeniable. his argument, if it can be boiled down to a quote is:

    The key word in Raymond’s argument is can. I’ll concede that open source can be reviewed by more people than proprietary software, but I don’t think it is reviewed by more people than proprietary software.

    The simple reality is that -most- Open Source software projects are -not- popular enough to create a sub-culture of project developers who devote themselves to fixing bugs and ensuring quality code. Note that just because Open Source software is popular with its users does not always ensure that the size and makeup of its developer community is large enough to encourage such a subculture.

    This is where Shawns piece breaks down. He does not bother segmenting the various “Open Source” projects nor does he bother segmenting proprietary software companies. One of the most important lessons to learn about software development is that very very few proprietary software companies are capable of operating at the level that Microsoft does.

    Lets imagine for a second what methods would produce the most bug-free and therefore secure software.

    The most important issue for determining how buggy software will be is to determine what the “game” is for developers. “The game” is the basic motivational structure that each individual developer is subject to when writing the given software. This kind of assumes that there is some variance in the rate at which developers debug their own code, and the rate at which they review other developers code, based on some kind of reputation, financial, or pleasure incentive.

    What happens if you make bug-fixing the primary focus of the game?

    The primary culture of the development team would be to develop highly secure and bug-free code, then simple competition and social pressure, inside your core development team, would help ensure that you have secure code. If a new developer were to join the project/company and was seeking to establish credibility, he or she would know that finding a bug and fixing it would increase their own prominence, probably at the expense of the developer that wrote the bug. The original developer would know that and take every effort to slow down and write good code in order not lose credibility.

    The problem with this “game” is that any Open Source project that took this approach would slow to a crawl. New features would be added very slowly, as developers spent lots of time reviewing, testing, and generally obsessing about bugs present in any portion of the code. In fact if secure code and bug-free software were truly the goal then this software project would intentionally continue to slow down as long as going any slower would produce better, more stable code.

    Frankly, no reasonable business plan for a proprietary software company could ever tolerate such an intentionally metered pace. However, Open Source software presents the opportunity for any community culture to grow and flourish. The OpenBSD project is a project with a focus almost identical to what I described here. The OpenBSD operating system is objectively the most secure operating system in the world based on several measures. You might imagine that a project so obsessed with security and bug-fixing would have a web-page devoted to their thoughts and practices on the subject, and you would be right.

    Shawn Hernan neglects to acknowledge that projects like OpenBSD are possible in Open Source but are impossible with proprietary software companies. But it is important that we not straw man Shawn’s argument. Proprietary Software companies have one substantial advantage over Open Source projects. They can pay developers to follow procedures that ensure high quality code and they can pay some developers to do nothing but professionally audit code. Microsoft is very good about this. But then they are in a pretty unique position regarding their software. You could restate Microsofts business plan as “protect the billions that we already make selling operating systems”. The profits from anything that the company is doing “to compete with Google” for instance, pales in comparison to the profits from selling operating systems. But Microsoft can recognize that if they do not compete with Google now, and at least sometimes on Google’s terms, Google will eventually begin to hit them where they live, by subverting the all important operating system profit.

    Microsoft has developed strict code-review procedures, like the ones Shawn Hernan mentions, because every time a vulnerability comes out for Microsoft software, alternatives look better and better. At this stage in Microsoft’s history, they have decided that security is a financial priority, but this only after years of ignoring it in favor of other more profitable business priorities. Just like most Open Source projects are not focused on being fundamentally secure, most proprietary software companies do not have an financial incentive to invest in programmers and procedures that produce fewer bugs and more secure code. Especially in healthcare software, bug-free code is an afterthought. This is just the nature of for-profit endeavors. The focus is always on what makes the most money. Microsoft is now in a position where secure code will protect profits. Proprietary EHR companies are not in that position. They write code that helps them sell to doctors. Since doctors are typically irrational purchasers, the feature set and priorities of typical EHR companies are similarly irrational.

    It should also be noted that just because Microsoft has an financial incentive to produce secure code in one product line does not means that this extends to all of its product lines.

    There is another method by which Open Source projects can be more secure and bug-free than code developed by a proprietary software company with an financial incentive to produce solid code. Its pretty simple really, and Shawn has already acknowledged it:

    But could “enough” code review, which might happen for popular projects like Linux and the Apache Web Server compensate for the more comprehensive approach of the SDL?….

    Shawn is acknowledging here that there are differences between Open Source projects. Ironically both the Apache project and the Linux Kernel are often subjected to distributed attempts at systematic bug detection similar to the whole contents of SDL. A great example of this is the Security Enhanced Linux (selinux) project run by the NSA. The problem with software bugs is that they are often unimportant for the average user, but a cracker can still use them to break into the system. This point is made most eloquently in the classic paper by Anderson and Needham, Programming Satans Computer. Projects like selinux attempt to make other bugs less prone to becoming a security weakness, an important step. This is exactly the kind of comprehensive security improvement that, according to Shawn, auditing is not supposed to have that Microsoft’s SDL does have. But the many eyes principle is not limited to mere audits. The whole point is that anyone can could shoehorn bug-detecting methods onto Open Source projects. I will use the term “Audit” to embrace all of the bug-detection and fixing techniques that Shawn mentioned. Since simply human auditing is often the most onerous and unlikely task for all but the most motivated developers.

    So we are now able to make a little ranking. Who has the most secure and bug free development practices and what kind of “game” are they using to achieve that security. I think it looks like this:

    1. Best: Security Obsessed Open Source: Open Source Projects that build-in bug-fixing at the expense of everything else, like OpenBSD.
    2. Really Good: Popular Open Source with audit teams: Open Source Projects that are so popular -with developers- that they can afford to create a security obsessed sub-culture within the development team. Projects like Apache, Linux, and MySQL (before… well you know…)
    3. Really Good: Proprietary Vendors who pay for audit: Proprietary software vendors who have a financial incentive (Microsoft) or cultural imperative (Fog Creek)  to create a development structure that reduces bugs.
    4. OK: Audited Open Source: Open Source projects that are sufficiently popular with developers to actually get some kind of formal code audit, preferably both automated and by a programmer trained in testing.
    5. Crappy: Unaudited Open Source: Open Source projects that are essentially one-man shows, whose code is rarely used and even more rarely looked at. (The vast majority of Open Source software projects in existence fall into this category)
    6. Worst: Unaudited Proprietary: Proprietary companies without a financial incentive to pay for expensive testing and bug-detection essentially have a financial incentive to -ignore- bugs. For most proprietary companies a software problem is only actually a bug, if it prevented a sale or lost a client.

    Shawn’s post correctly points out that Microsoft, which is a typically in group #3 is much better than Open Source generally which is typically in group #5. of course his argument will be embraced and touted by companies who are in group #6.

    Which brings me back to my subject of passion: Open Source medical software. I believe, tragically, that most Open Source Health software projects are in category #5 (Unaudited Open Source). I think this is changing with companies like Medsphere and ClearHealth becoming more mature companies, they can afford to sponsor auditors for their projects. Others like MOSS and Indivo are starting out with a security focus. I think #2 is the right target for us since it is not clear that OpenBSD is a -better project- just because it is -more secure-. Linux is still more secure that Microsoft Windows, and it is developed at much greater pace.

    Still, I think the lesson here is that the best security happens when people focus on the boring and mundane. Starting with reading someone else’s code and then moving all the way up to using software to make software more secure. We simply do not have enough security focus in our corner of the Open Source world and I have to admit it is partly my fault. Before coming to the world of Open Source Health Software I was trained in Information Security at the Air Force Information Warfare Center in San Antonio. That payed off with later security contracting with Rackspace, Verisign and Nokia. I have never been 100% devoted to code auditing in any of my previous roles, but I know enough by rubbing shoulders to know when I should be nervous. As I look around the Open Source Health Software arena, there is a lot to be nervous about. There are also upsides. Our community has embraced at least two other serious security people. Alesha Adamson with MOSS was trained as a security geek at one of the few NSA National Centers of Academic Excellence and Ben Adida with Indivo X has a PhD from MIT, under the Cryptography and Information Security group

    Both of these people are fully cognizant of security research and they are in leadership roles in their respective projects, and in the community as a whole But is it important that the whole community learn from their strong kung-fu. We need to develop a kind of security focused sub-group within the Open Source health information movement. We need people willing to do security audits on not one but several important Open Source codebases. Perhaps we should be trying to get members of the larger security community involved with Open Source healthcare software auditing. I will be thinking more about this, but I would love to hear my readers thoughts on the subject.

    -FT

    Basically a bad deal

    Emma Schwartz is an serious investigative reporter who now works for the Huffington Post

    She has taken an interest in covering Electronic Healh Record issues and has started to reveal just how problematic this industry is.

    Her most recent article, Doctors Get Buyers Remorse, is her best yet. She has uncovered not one but several of the kinds of stories that industry insiders like me view as typical. This may not be as glamours as uncovering that big story about the congressman paying his mistress…. but this is exactly the kind of documentation that people like me need when we claim that basically the proprietary EHR industry is broken.

    I love it.

    -FT

    Hello World with Indivo X

    Ben Adida the project manager for the Indivo X project has announced the first public code drop of Indivo X on the Indivo developers mailing list, two days ago. Since then I have been spinning up a Rackspace Cloud instance to see if I could get it up and running.

    I do not yet have write access to the wiki to make notes, but I documented all of the issues I had using Sidewiki so if you want to use an identical setup, I might save you an hour or so. Frankly, most of the hiccups I have are due to fact that I am most comfortable using PHP/MySQL/RedHat rather than the Ubuntu/Python/PostgreSQL setup used by Indivo X. After clearing some mental cobwebs, I had my own Indivo X PHR Platform installed and running..

    Here is the obligatory screenshot, sanitized for spammers…

    Screenshot of the alpha release of Indivo X
    Screenshot of the alpha release of Indivo X

    Of course, there are no applications to install yet, so “get more apps” does nothing. But the basic Indivo X platform is available, and will be going through the standard alpha/beta/1.0 process over the next few weeks/months.

    Why this matters

    Eventually there will be a dominant health platform upon which most personal health applications will be built. These are the applications that patients will use directly as health consumers.

    This is the core enabler for the e-patient, it is at the heart of “Health 2.0”

    It is the PHR or Personal Health Record. This health records of the future will be massively connected, like the Internet today, and the same way each of us has a primary email address, where our email records all end up, in the future we will all have Personal Health Records. Just like there is a competition between email providers, there will be a competition between PHR platforms. For many years, you can count on it being pretty difficult to move between these platforms however, alot more like getting a Mac to talk to a PC and vice-versa, than moving your email provider.

    The dominant platform might be Google Health, HealthVault, or some kind of layer on the Health Internet (perhaps a spin-off from the Mirth or CONNECT projects)

    However, my money is on Indivo X.

    Indivo X is the newest PHR Platform engine developed jointly by Harvard Medical School Children’s Hospital Informatics Program and Intelligent Health Lab. Indivo X is a complete reimagining of the original Indivo PHR, which was already one of the most successful Open Source PHR applications available. It was the codebase behind Dossia, which is one of the three “big” PHR deployments (the others are Google Health and HealthVault). Indivo X comes from impeccable stock.

    Indivo X is dramatically different the original Indivo project in several important ways. First it is entirely rebuilt using the Python Django + PostgreSQL stack. Second it has been redesigned to be a PHR-platform, PHR functionality in Indivo X will be provided by modular applications, applications that could even be hosted on other computers. Indivo X is designed to create a market for PHR sub-applications using unifying PHR data abstractions provided by Indivo X. The notion for Indivo X is almost entirely based on the notions first outlined in now-famous NEJM article. I had criticized the article because it does not fully consider the implications of the proprietary trap for health software. However, this release renders most of my comments moot. These guys are trying to strike a balance between a stable platform and respecting software freedom and doing a more than decent job of it.

    They have invited me to code on their development server, which has been up for a while, but I have very limited time due to my own skunkworks project (love a secret….) , and I can only afford to contribute when I can see both ends of the code. Still my skunksworks application will be consumer facing health application (Open Source eventually… of course) that is suitable to interface with HealthVault, Google Health and of course Indivo X. Given my feelings on software freedom, you can bet which one I plan on integrating with first….

    An alpha code drop is a big day for any project and I know that the Indivo team has been working hard on this for months now. Congratulations are in order.

    -FT

    Cloud + VistA = Astronaut Shuttle

    I am not sure how many people out there have tried Astronaut Shuttle yet.

    First, let me get the caveats out of the way. Ignacio Valdes, the CEO of Astronaut (the company) hired me to do most of the cloud related work on shuttle. So I am financially biased on this. I chose to take the work, because I believe that the future of VistA is in the cloud. (If you do not know what VA VistA is, this might be a little muddy to you, and you might take a second and find out what VA VistA is…)

    I hope that my readers can glean just how important the idea that is being put forward here is. Many people have criticized VistA for being long in the tooth and not “hip” to modern innovations such as the Cloud, web 2.0 and health 2.0 concepts. On the other side, no one has been able to provide any results in the same league as the clinical improvements that VA has seen over the last several decades using VistA. In the universe of Health Informatics people touting beautiful new technologies have failed to outdo people using the tried-and-true but boring. What follows is a template for taking the best parts of the new platforms, and using them to improve the classic VistA technology.

    The History

    The idea for shuttle came to Ignacio and I over the course of many of our back and forth conversations about the cloud and about his Astronaut VistA installer package.

    For those who do not know already, VA VistA used to be a real bear to get installed and basically configured. Getting to “hello world” with this amazing MUMPS-based Open Source EHR system was really really difficult. Dr. Ignacio Valdes, of LinuxMedNews fame, set out to change that. His goal was simple, he wanted to make VA VistA usable, as close to instantly as humanly possible. He wanted to remove any cumbersome installation or configuration decision that had no meaning to the administrator making the decision. What was a process that took months for first-timers now takes mere minutes, simply download the astronaut rpm or deb installer to your Linux machine and away you go.

    Once Ignacio had taken the project all the way to consistently working DEB and RPMs, I noticed that he spent lots of development time spinning up Rackspace Cloud GNU/Linux instances, installing an Astronaut DEB or RPM, and then giving root access to a collaborator to debug something or another.  I began wondering if this process could be automated. With a little study I discovered that we could use paid AMI instances to give people access to GNU/Linux images pre-configured to run Astronaut VistA.

    The rest is history, I created Shuttle to work with Astronaut, and Ignacio developed critical features into Astronaut so that it would work cleanly in a cloud environment. When it came time to name the system, it was pretty obvious: what do you use to “launch” astronauts? Shuttle is a lot like RightScale , in that you use it to launch Amazon ec2 images, but specifically tuned to handle things required by an EHR, specifically VistA, in the cloud. One of its most important functions is as a key-server, so that you can have a fully encrypted VistA instance, without ever having the password live on the instance itself. That might sound like a lot of mumbo-jumbo to you if you are not technical, but what it basically means is that Amazon, even though they are hosting your VistA EHR for you, cannot access the health information stored on the database… only the EHR users can do that.

    The service is still in beta, we would like to have more feedback and several critical service offerings (like auto-magic cloud-based backup) in place before releasing the system as 1.0. But as this point we are pretty confident that we will be able to carry customer EHR data who want to use the beta system in live environments forward. (that is what makes it beta, rather than alpha…) I would love to hear comments from my readers about what features they would like to see next in a service like this, as well as what you think those features should cost. Medsphere just charged a 100-bed hospital $2 million dollars for 5 years of VistA support, so getting full-access to VistA experts is an expensive proposition. I want to be clear, the kind of hand-holding and face-to-face help that Medsphere is selling is not what you get with Shuttle. We are essentially taking a metered approach to EHR deployment… the first offering is just automated installation in the cloud… what services do you want next?

    It does not really matter if you want to host your instance of VistA in the cloud or not, the whole point of using an Open Source EHR system is that you are not married to your software vendor. If you feel like you no longer want to have your VistA EHR hosted in the cloud, all you need to do is copy your EHR to your own server, and then turn off your cloud server and stop paying. That means if you just want to spend a day or two playing with VistA to see if it is right for you, you can do that, and then turn off your cloud server and decide if you want to go to the trouble to install it locally.

    I am in a pretty decent position where I can afford to work only on projects that I feel are truly revolutionary. Think about it, other vendors are charging several hundreds of dollars per month -per doctor- to get access to an EHR system. Using Astronaut and Shuttle, we can charge about $100 per month for an entire EHR. That’s a minimal markup (once by Amazon and once by Astronaut) on the base cost for the hardware itself. An EHR that can run an entire clinic or hospital. While some people will not be able to live with the limitations of the cloud (you have to have your data off-site for instance) for those who can tolerate the cloud, can get access to extremely high quality software at near-hardware costs.

    Besides Amazon ec2, Shuttle would not have been possible without the excellent Ubuntu images from alestic and the php Amazon AWS library CloudFusion. Obviously none of this would have been possible without the Astronaut server and client installers, projects which are in turn indebted to OpenVistA and WorldVistA. Standing on the shoulders of giants.

    The Idea

    Before Shuttle, installing VistA required considerable systems administration know-how. With Shuttle you can start a VistA server, in the Amazon Cloud in a few minutes. You do not need to see a command line once. Anyone can now use a simple web-interface and have access to VistA, which is arguably the best Electronic Health Record System in the world

    VistA is in two parts, a server and a bundle of clients that installs on Windows XP (the most famous of which is CPRS). Setting up the VistA server requires access to GNU/Linux or  proprietary software under Windows. The Open Source Astronaut VistA installers make it easy to install the VistA server on GNU/Linux. But setting up a separate server to test an application is a bother for those who no how and impossible for those who do not know how. Either way, using Shuttle, you can just start an instance of OpenVistA or WorldVistA with a click of  a button.

    The VistA instances do not just have the VistA server installed, they also have a version of the Astronaut VistA client installer available for download from each instance. Each instances compiles the installer to be pre-linked with the server that it is downloaded from. The end result is that you download and install the client from an Shuttle VistA instance, it will auto-magically talk directly to that instance. All traffic to the server is encrypted and all data on the server is encrypted, as per HIPAA/ARRA regulations.

    What does that mean? It means for the cost of renting a small server at Amazon (about $100-$150 per month), you can instantly have access to an entire VistA server. That VistA server, encrypted, in the cloud,  will allow you to download a client pack to every computer in your clinic or hospital. This is as close as you can get to instant VA VistA. But rather than let me continue blabbing about this idea, let me show you how it works…

    Happy Launching!

    -FT

    To Senator Grassely on EHR problems

    Senator Chuck Grassely has sent out some letters to several proprietary EHR vendors asking some pretty direct questions. Here is the relevant excerpts.

    Over the past year, I have received complaints from patients, medical
    practitioners and technologies engineers regarding difficulties they have encountered
    with the HIT and CPOE devices in their medical facilities. These complaints include, for
    example, faulty software that miscalculated intracranial pressures and interchanged
    kilograms and pounds, resulting in incorrect medication dosages.
    In addition, it has been reported that HIT/CPOE manufacturers rely on a legal
    doctrine known as “learned intermediaries,” to shift responsibility for errors in the HIT
    systems to physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care providers. The
    manufacturers allegedly argue that the health care provider should be able to identify and
    correct errors caused by the software. It has also been reported that HIT/CPOE contracts
    with medical facilities may include “hold harmless” provisions that absolve
    manufacturers of these products of any liability for errors that are allegedly HIT/CPOE
    system or software failures. These contracts may also include “gag orders,” which
    prohibit health care providers from disclosing system flaws and software defects.

    Furthermore, it was also reported to me that there is no system in place to track,
    monitor and report the performance of these systems/devices, which could impact a
    health care provider’s ability to make informed decisions regarding the implementation
    of an HIT/CPOE system.

    To start lets bullet these complaints:

    • faulty software with dangerous results
    • avoidance of liability using legalize
    • gag clauses
    • no open data on bugs and problems

    I submit that these are problems arise from the quasi-monopoly that these companies aquire with their software licenses. A definition of monopoly is:

    a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller

    The government does a pretty good job of breaking up simple monopolies, monopolies where there is simply one provider of a service and that is all there is to it. The government does a pretty bad job of preventing what you might call “staged monopolies”, which is more commonly referred to as “vendor lock in”.

    I love simplified examples. When you are on the outside of a movie theater, there is a competition for your movie dollar. You can drive to another theater, you can go home and watch a rented DVD, or a movie downloaded from the Internet. But the moment you pay for the ticket, the competition portion of the movie experience is over. If you looked at the items available from the concession stand -inside- a movie theater you will see a clear pattern:

    • The items available are all high-profit items. Healthy sandwiches require lots of labor relative to popcorn, but would not sell for much more…
    • The items available are all enticing, but what is enticing might not be very good for you.
    • Everything is overpriced.
    • The service is typically non-existent.

    Once you have purchased your movie ticket, the movie theater has won the competition and also earned the ability to overcharge you for everything else. Also, the movie theater is very strict about forbidding outside food.. it has to be in order to protect its cash cow. Its not a particular theater that is at fault here, it is the basic structure of the deal itself. All of the theaters have the same deal, and all of the theaters offer the same high-priced, artery-clogging fare. They have to in order to stay competitive with each other.

    The movie goer knows that the basic deal they are making is a bad one. If they wanted to have a healthy movie, they would rent a DVD and stop by Subway on the way home.

    The problem with doctors purchasing proprietary EHR systems is that the problems that you are seeing are the direct and necessary consequences of the monopoly that a proprietary software license provides to the EHR software vendor. Proprietary software vendors are competing carefully -before- the EHR is purchased, but once the doctor has bought the system he is trapped.

    Why the gag orders? Because the EHR vendors compete only -before- the EHR purchase, they have a huge incentive to provide the doctors with slanted data during that stage. How do they do they do that? They chose one customer who is really happy with their product and they have tours of that facility and they write white papers about that facility and they provide that facility as a reference. They might have 95 facilities who are furious with them and 5 who love them, but if they have a gag order in the contract then they can use the 5 to provide a skewed view to new clients.

    You have already pointed out that there is no open system for reporting the flaws in EHR systems. All of the companies that you survey will give you lots of information about their sophisticated systems for tracking software errors. But these systems are closed, and as a result, there is no way for a particular doctor to know if the software problem he is having is common or unusual. There is no way for the doctor to recognize that he or she is the victim of systematic neglect or is the only person on the planet with a given problem.

    Gag orders and closed reporting systems are two tactics in a much larger struggle between proprietary EHR vendors and EHR consumers. The struggle is to control the information available to EHR purchasers. This is not the only way proprietary EHR companies skew the data. They use organizations like HIMSS and the EHRVA to provide an air of legitimacy and professionalism. There are organizations that provide EHR “reports” that are supposedly objective, however, these types of evaluating organizations typically also serve as “consultants” to EHR companies. In short the EHR companies pay off the “researchers”. There is no equivalent to “Consumer Reports” in the EHR market (although there are some organizations that are trying). If a doctor is reading a report comparing EHR vendors, that report was very probably made by someone who was paid by those vendors.

    There is a tremendous financial incentive to control information that impacts EHR sales, and lack of objective information is one of the big problems that your constituents are facing.

    Now lets talk about the software bugs. We can talk about to classes of software bugs, bugs that are so huge that they blow up a salesman’s presentation of an EHR, and all of the other bugs that are not that big. I can assure you that the average proprietary EHR system does not have many sales-destroying bugs.

    Bug-fixing isan expense, and a big one. Lets imagine that this year, software company X will discover 100 bugs in their software. Now, how will the “bottom line” be impacted if they fix 90 bugs vs 10 bugs. The answer? very little. There is simply no financial incentive to provide a greater reponse to EHR bugs. Their customers are trapped. When a doctor uses an EHR even for a short time, that doctor makes three important investments, time, money and patient data. Once they have chosen a vendor, it is almost always a worse deal to leave the vendor then it is to continue to accept poor service from that vendor. If they leave, they have to buy a new system, learn a new system and migrate patient data. It just costs too much.

    Its just like the movie patron. Every time I pay six dollars for fifty cents worth of coca-cola, I resent the movie theater. I -could- leave and go somewhere else, but then I would loose the price of the tickets, and not get to see that movie tonight; too expensive. So I suck it up and pay six dollars for a small coke.

    Again, it is not the proprietary EHR vendor itself that is at fault, it is the basic unfairness of the bargain.

    Your last concern was regarding the legal loopholes that EHR vendors use to avoid the liability that occurs when their software causes medical errors that hurt people.

    The simple reality on this issue is that no EHR company, proprietary or otherwise can afford to share medical liability with a doctor. A single death or serious injury that could be tied to the EHR vendor instead of the doctor could put the vendor out of business. If they could not avoid the liability contractually, they would have to insure against it, and the cost of that insurance would be roughly on par with cost of the medical malpractice that the doctor is forced to pay. If any EHR company is exposed to these levels of potential liability, then the stimulus money from ARRA will not make a dent in the new costs of EHR systems.

    Software bugs are a simple reality. EHR software bugs, have and will continue to kill people. This is a difficult thing for politicians to face, but that -is- an acceptable cost of moving to EHR systems. If I told you that by causing 100 deaths a year I could prevent all of the traffic accidents in the United States in the same year you would jump at that offer! The math is really that simple: how may people will EHR bugs kill? vs how many will be saved through pervasive availability of EHR technology?

    The problem is that right now, no one know what the true cost of these EHR bugs except proprietary EHR companies who stand to profit greatly by keeping the information secret and keeping the number of people killed by bugs as high as possible. Fixing bugs is a tremendous expense and the EHR companies have a financial incentive to only fix as many bugs as it takes to keep their clients from leaving. Because the cost of leaving is so high to EHR clients, the number of bugs fixed is low indeed. The current system incentivize proprietary EHR vendors to keep the information about deadly bugs a secret and to fix as few of them as possible.

    The solution? The doctors must discern that the deal is bad, and seek a better one.

    People are watching less and less movies at theaters. People have learned that there is a much better deal available. Buy a nice TV, rent the same movies for a fraction of the cost, cook whatever you want to eat and watch the movie from your comfortable sofa. The market is pushing people away from the crappy monopoly deal and towards the better deal without any monopolistic component. Movie theaters are responding..  now many movie theaters have removed rows of seating to make room for tables and are offering full restaurant style meals at reasonable prices… along with seeing a movie. A much better deal.

    For EHR vendors, the better deal is this: An open source EHR.

    Here is why an Open Source license prevents the problems you are mentioning:

    First, the competition never stops, the open source license give the EHR buyer the right to fire the EHR vendor, and hire another one, without migrating software. That means that the end of the sales process does not mean the end of the competition. If an EHR vendor tried to have a client sign a gag order, that client could find another vendor to implement the first vendors software offering. If the open source EHR vendor failed to fix a critical software bug, the client could find another vendor to do it, or even do it themselves. All open source software vendors of note publish bugs publicly, in fact they will even accept bugs discovered by people using the software who are not paying the software vendor. Open Source software naturally produces open bug reporting, competition for the fixing of bugs, and no gag orders (or other silly contract stunts). What about liability? By making the basic relationship fair, and focusing vendor competition on reducing bugs the software is made safer through the natural action of commerce, rather than the artificial safety provided by lawsuits. Critical bugs, like the ones mentioned in your letter, will be fixed overnight, or somebody will get fired. That’s a much better deal than ensuring that when someone is killed after 4 months of living with a known bug, there are more people to sue.

    But do not take my word for it.

    I would encourage you to send your letter and questions to Mike Doyle, the CEO of Medsphere (an important Open Source EHR vendor) and compare his answers to those provided by the vendors you have already sent letters to. Do not worry about time, it will only take Mike a day or two to answer the questions. Most of the information is already online, he could just send you a bunch of hyperlinks. Medsphere is not the only good Open Source EHR vendor, but their responses will be typical of the industry. I can provide you with 10 other Open Source EHR companies if you would like.

    What do I want you to do about all this? Nothing. Open Source EHR systems wins in the end anyways…

    Do think of me the next time you watch a movie at home…

    -Fred Trotter

    Hardware Hack: Hacking the ICE Medical ID USB wallet card

    I am happy to say that I have a totally new type of post for my readers.

    I am going to detail how to modify to the “ICE Medical ID” product to be relevant for those of use who do not want to be stuck crappy proprietary software. This only barely qualifies as hardware hacking, I am just going to detail how to remove the default software that comes with the card. But once this is done, it will form the foundation for some much cooler work. I bought my card for $20 at a local CVS, but you can get them all over the place. The only difference between this and some other credit card sized usb drive is that it is clearly labeled that it contains your In Case of Emergency (ICE) information. Most importantly, the card is Open Source and remix friendly. You can put whatever you want on the card and your EMT or ER personnel might find it.

    First, you need to turn on viewing hidden files and potentially hidden system files in your Windows folder configuration. (Unless you are using GNU/Linux, which makes this step unneeded) This will allow you to see the hidden system files that the Ice.exe relies on.  Once you have done this you should be able to see the following files on the USB drive:

    Ice.exe

    unicows.dll

    Ice (a directory)

    Autorun.inf

    The hack could not be simpler… delete all of these.

    The Ice.exe file is a simple PHR application that makes all of the first-generation software errors. It stores its data in xml (under the ice sub-directory) but not in CCR or CCD, making the data you enter there trapped. It has bullet choice defaults, even when a user has not chosen data. The end result is that the application makes assumptions (like that a user is married) for unselected options. This is exactly the reason why Health Information software should be open source. The company that released this card has no business creating health software and they hired professional developers, but amateur health informaticists to do this work. Lots of rookie mistakes here.

    I replaced the above with a simple text file with the following information:

    Hi,
    If you are reading this then I must be hurt very badly.
    Please make sure my wife, Laura Trotter (email) and (phone number)
    and my brother Rick Trotter (email) and (phone number)
    are fully informed regarding my condition.

    My blood type is O+
    I had minor knee surgery on my right knee several years ago. A small part of my patellar tendon was removed.
    I am not allergic to anything that I know of. I have never had a reaction to any anesthesia.
    You should be able to find an health insurance card in my wallet, where you found this card.

    Thank you for taking care of me.

    Regards,
    Frederick (Fred) Clayton Trotter

    Email might seem funny, but it might be possible that my wife is in a different country when I am injured, and email always works…

    I thought about replacing the Autorun.inf with something to popup the text file automatically when the USB was inserted into a computer, but Windows 7 no longer supports non-optical drives running Autorun.inf and Apple OS X or GNU/Linux computers do not support that either. It is just as well since most of the time I insert the card into a computer I will be using it to transfer files.

    I also could and probably will upgrade the text file to an html file at some point. But I think that kind of work is best left to when I can integrate the record with Google Health or better yet with Indivo. Html would have the added benifit of allowing me to integrate a picture, which would make it pretty simple to include information on one card for several people, a mom-pleasing feature indeed. (You can do this with the proprietary software only after you purchase the privilege)

    Enjoy hacking your healthcare information.

    -FT

    On project governance

    Recently, some of the i2b2 team asked me for my thoughts on project governance. I find that my lengthy email answers to these kinds of questions are worth blogging about. I mean really, its a bother to write a good blog post and a bother to write a long email… why duplicate??

    The original question was very broad:

    Can you share any pointers to governance procedures, policy
    and organization for an OS process?

    The first question to ask is who, practically speaking, currently has the right to modify the published version of i2b2? Lets call those the “developers”.
    The second question to ask is who owns the trademark to the term “i2b2”? That person or organization is by implication the current shepherd. Most of your concern should go into legitimizing your current development team and ensuring that your shepherd organization is doing right by them.

    Next, is there a for-profit company that is predominantly the employer of more than half of the developers? If that is the case than you can consider a for-profit shepherd organization (like RedHat or Canonical). Usually for an organic project like i2b2 this will not work.

    Next you can setup a new non-profit as the shepherd organization. This is the most common model. The purpose of this organization is primarily to have someone to sue other than developers directly. 501c3s are a bother to setup, if you want you can create an “arm” of an existing non-profit. There are at least two options for this, you can work with Open Health Tools which is really designed to support this. Often that does not work for licensing or other governance  reasons, and if you need more autonomy but still want a non-profit shield, you are welcome to setup sub-organization with Liberty Health Software Foundation.  There are other Open Source Health IT non-profits out there…

    No matter if you setup your own non-profit, partner with an existing one, or choose a for-profit vehicle, your governance model is basically the same core set of issues. The questions you must answer definitively with your organization governance is:

    • Who gets to update the code?
    • Who gets to name a particular codebase as the “current” and “official” version of i2b2?
    • If you have a modular architecture (and who doesn’t?) how do you decide which modules get to advertise on the main community “site”
    • How do new developers earn the right to update the core code?
    • Who will you recommend for paid support? How can an organization get on that list? This is an important question, you must do everything to ensure that when i2b2 is installed somewhere by some third party that if that third party was using the i2b2 name to market themselves that they did a good job.
    • What are the rules for the use of the i2b2 trademark?
    • Where do you go on the web to participate in the i2b2 user and developer community?
    • Who owns the copyright to i2b2? What is the license? If you decide to change the license how will that happen? Are you requiring copyright assigments for coded contributions and if so, to whom are the copyrights assigned?
    • What is your policy towards patented software? (Universities can be sensitive about this)
    • Will the organization be employing developers? Will you seek money for development?
    • How will you unsure that future difficult decisions on your project will be made well?

    I know that i2b2 has very strong academic associations, as many FOSS projects do. That relationship may mean that “at the university’s discretion” is often the answer to many of the above questions. That is fine, but you need to make it perfectly clear which of the above questions you are abdicating (and why) and which you are not.

    I hope that I have adequately opened a can of worms for you. I have many opinions on how these questions should be answered and for each of them there are many different legit paths taken by other FOSS organizations. I can intelligently discuss how the top reference organizations function as applied to you (like Apache, Mozilla, Eclipse and Linux) to see where there might be areas for you to imitate. Let me know which of these topics interest you and I can discuss them further here. The most important thing to realize is that your governance -cannot- be as complex as the Apache governance processes without also having the kinds of resources that the Apache projects have. You either need to work with an organization like Open Health Tools which has alot of these things figured out, (but may have made decisions that you cannot live with) or you need to create a light-weight set of processes and governances that are something that your organization can actually follow.

    I am sure that you already have concerns and ideas that I have not even listed, either because I am unaware, or I think there are not important. So I as you go through this process I would advise you to ask two questions:

    “What bargain am I making with my users? Besides understanding what my software does, my users want to understand what license obligations they are undertaking to use my software. They want to understand how to connect into a community of users, and how to get paid support if they need it. Are the ‘terms’ for becoming a user of the my software clear and fair? “

    and

    “What bargain am I making with my developers? Developers are by implication both interested and not satisfied with my current software. They want to improve it with me, but they must calculate whether it is worth their time to make the investment to develop with me. Are the ‘terms’ that I set forward to them clear enough that they can determine whether to make that investment?

    Sometimes an shepherd organization is going to have to make unpopular decisions. (Like Red Hat did in retiring Red Hat Linux and creating Fedora) How will your organization be able to make good decisions that potentially infuriate your users? More importantly, how will your organization recognize when your community of users has moved beyond you? (Like the firefox project did inside Mozilla) how will your organization maintain the humility to recognize that a community version is better than your official version?

    If you get either of these questions wrong, your shepherd organization will end up holding your project back in the long term.

    Probably the most controversial question that you have to answer is to what degree you will allow your community to rule you. When WorldVista (the current non-profit for VistA) was originally formed, they were concerned that corporate interests would “buy-out” the WorldVistA board. As a result there are no elections to the WorldVistA board positions. There is no way for the community to remove board members. Over time, this has resulted in a steady loss of “doers” on the WorldVistA board. Enforcing “doing” over “dithering” is impossible if you cannot rid yourself of someone who really wants to “dither” (for goodness sake look at Congress). As a result, the board tends to attract and keep “ditheres” while alienating “doers” in the community. The few “doers” on the current WorldVistA board are long-suffering and patient individuals… martyrs really. The end result is that WorldVistA consistently refused to make the difficult decisions. When they do act, it is usually only after a particular strategy has become obvious (<- read this as “too late”)

    WorldVistA did not start out that way, it is a factor of organization rot based on bad decisions made early in the formation process. But remember, their concern was very real. There are plenty of organizations that get taken over by corporate interests. The purpose of a shepherding organization is to protect the project for its developers and users, that means partnering with companies, but not being ruled by them.

    For a worst-case scenario of how an organization can get embroiled in project issue, consider when Tridgell developed a FOSS Bitkeeper client while employed by OSDL (the precursor to the Linux Foundation). At the time OSDL also employed Linus Torvalds, who was in favor of using the proprietary Bitkeeper. From OSDLs perspective, you had a big mess. Two of its sponsored developers where at odds putting in a potential position of liability from Bitmover, the company behind the proprietary Bitkeeper tool.

    You have to consider the far future of a project as you consider your governance structure. To do this, you have to honestly, and potentially painfully, asses the potential conflicts within your particular community. Remember that it will not be you sitting in your chair when the critical decisions are made, you have to be able to assume that your replacements will be competent, but you would be foolish to assume that they have your motivations. Its a difficult balance and I wish any project luck with that.

    For the best examples of well-run shepherding in our community I would recommend Medsphere.org (the community arm of Medsphere corp) and the OpenMRS project.

    HTH,
    -FT