Open Source Study Included In US Stimulus Package

gclef writes "Buried deep in the details of the US stimulus package is an interesting provision that might go a long way toward helping Open Source software break into the medical area. It says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should study the availability of open source health technology systems (PDF, page 488), compare their TCO against proprietary systems and report on what they find no later than Oct 1, 2010. Slashdotters may also be interested in the language that starts on page 553 of that PDF to see just what the final package says about broadband." The stimulus plan was approved by the Senate on Friday and is expected to be signed by President Obama by Monday.

Comments

what stimulus package?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean the 800 billion (larger than any US budget prior to 1983) in miscellaneous pork? They're already planning on a second stimulus since this one is expected to be a total failure.

Re:what stimulus package?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean the 800 billion (larger than any US budget prior to 1983) in miscellaneous pork?

One definition of pork is spending designed to stimulate the economy in a particular congress person's district. In that sense, as long the pork is evenly distributed throughout all the congressional districts then that's exactly what the US economy needs.

Another definition of pork is spending that doesn't have long term economic benefits. For example, if you spend money on a road, at the end of the day you have a road to use whereas, if you spend money on exotic dancers, at the end of the day you don't have anything other than pleasant memories - and the theory goes that roads make the economy more efficient while pleasant memories don't.

The original stimulus bill tried hard to spend on projects that were likely to lead to long term economic efficiency (infrastructure and education). Some Republican pork (e.g. tax cuts to spend on exotic dancers) may have been included in order to get the necessary Republican votes but the original stimulus tried hard to avoid being pork.

Re:what stimulus package?

[Anonymous Coward]

$800 billion is ~$420 billion in 1982 dollars (using the GDP deflator; the other metrics give much smaller numbers). You have to account for inflation whenever you're talking about very large amounts of money since even a few years can make a 5-10% difference. Measuring Worth has a good calculator.

Re:what stimulus package?

[MacEnvy]

You conclusion does not follow. Just because Republicans didn't vote for it (in the House, not in the Senate) doesn't mean that no Republican pork was added. They knew it would pass and in committee they DEFINITELY added their own pet projects to the bill under the guise of "improving it so that they could possibly support it". However, when it came down to the *political* aspect of actually voting for the bill, they chose to make a partisan statement rather than follow up on their previous talk of "possibly supporting it with these changes" (i.e., their pork that was added). Whatever, it's just politics, and almost none of what the Republicans have said publicly about both the bill itself and their own intentions has ended up being true. For the record, considering the size of the bill, there is an incredibly small amount of actual pork in it. But you'd have to actually look at some of the provisions to understand, rather than parroting big-mouthed right-wing pundits.

Re:what stimulus package?

[jcnnghm]

Not a single Republican in the House voted for this. Only the 3 RINOs in the Senate voted for this. The House Minority Leader threw the bill on the floor of the House after calling the Democrats out for breaking their promise to provide 48 hours to review the bill. Just out of curiosity, how many of the 1,073 pages have you read in the ~36 hours the bill has been available? Did you notice all the handwritten changes.

Re:what stimulus package?

[xenocide2]

The tax cuts that satisfy Republicans are always income tax, and their favorite is the upper bracket. Recall trickle down economics, where the theory goes that rich people will invest money in the economy, providing jobs and rah rah rah. It just doesn't hold though; investors this year have plenty of write offs to work through before they even care about taxes. Many are sitting in treasury bonds rather than corporate equities or bonds.

In contrast, payroll taxes rarely get touched. In part that's because they fund things like Medicare and Social Security, the golden cows of the AARP. But there's a worry that the working poor won't contribute to the economic recovery either; there's a lot of consumer debt out there and it's unlikely the top tax bracket has most of that. Paying off credit cards might slightly alleviate the banking crisis via balance sheet improvement, but it's not going to directly create new demand. Especially in a downward economy, a lot of them will be saving more and spending less. Can you remember what happened in 2002 with the early Tax Refund insanity?

Everyone, rich or poor, thinks the banks are bankrupt on paper, while Washington is hoping America can spend its way back to higher real estate prices and avoid a severe reckoning with those agents of failure that brought us to the brink. Republicans simply think private investment can restore it, while Democrats argue that the government is the only body that can raise enough capital to take the necessary action (I'll note that it can also do it very cheaply).

It's worth noting that the free market suffered from a widespread principle-agent failure. Management approved risky transactions like Credit Default swaps because they didn't fully understand the risk they exposed shareholders to, but liked the profit they were earning in the short term. Credit rating agencies also failed to solve the information asymmetry problem. Mortgage brokers made loans they'd never consider holding, and quickly fell apart when their market for shitty debtors dried up. What's going to solve this isn't more jobs or more demand for housing, but a significant rewriting of the social contract between management and investors. I wish Republicans had the balls to bring that up instead of asking for tax cuts for the companies and businessmen that fill their campaign coffers. It'd be far more interesting than people demanding executives dispense with their private jets and fly coach.

Re:what stimulus package?

[jcnnghm]

Specter is a RINO. If it wasn't for him, the bill wouldn't have passed. And this isn't a tax cut, it's a tax deferral. If the Republicans wanted the bill to pass, they would have voted for it. You can't spin it the other way.

Re:what stimulus package?

[icebrain]

You conclusion does not follow. Just because Republicans didn't vote for it (in the House, not in the Senate) doesn't mean that no Republican pork was added. They knew it would pass and in committee they DEFINITELY added their own pet projects to the bill under the guise of "improving it so that they could possibly support it".

"The Democrats did everything right and pure, did nothing wrong, only the evil Republicans added bad pork!"

Perhaps it escaped your notice, but the Republicans were completely shut out of the negotiations for the bill. Pelosi's new rules completely barred Republicans for offering any amendments whatsoever to the stimulus. It was written and negotiated behind closed doors, by Democrats, without Republican input at all. And yet you want to blame them for bad content in a bill that they had no part of? Hell, even Obama was willing to talk with them, but power-drunk "I'm above the law" Pelosi didn't care. She wanted it passed her way, and broke her own promises to allow the bill to be read, because she wanted to go to Europe.

And then, they voted on the bill without even reading it.

Transparency and bipartisanship my hairy ass.

Re:what stimulus package?

[iluvcapra]

Specter is a RINO. If it wasn't for him, the bill wouldn't have passed.

And Collins. Don't worry, you'll be able to primary them both out, get ideologues on the ticket, and see moderate dems defeat them in the general. If you want your party to actually be staffed by nothing but wingnuts, and to perpetually represent 40%, this is a very effective approach.

And this isn't a tax cut, it's a tax deferral.

By that standard the Bush Tax Cuts of '01 were a tax deferral. Nobody seriously cuts discretionary spending, I just belong to the party that's honest about it :P

Re:i'm-sure-that-makes-us-socialists-somehow dept.

[zappepcs]

Yeah, but no matter what it makes us, the US population in general will not know about it till well past 2010. It will take that long for our legislators to actually read the damn thing. Sure there will be watchdog groups who have read it before then, but like those that nay-sayed on the DMCA and US PATRIOT Act, they will be ignored until we are suffering the bad and unintended consequences of caveats in this bill.

TCO and open vs closed source

[Calindae]

The only down side is medical professionals are going to have a difficult time implementing either closed or open source technology by 2010, let alone doing *both* and comparing. Don't get me wrong, I love the use of technology in the medical field and I fully support our new overlord (much better than old Bushy), but that seems a but rushed, IMHO.

Re:TCO and open vs closed source

[Ostracus]

I have the link somewhere but it appears the issue with medical systems isn't so much lack of technology, but uniform standards. Also the only open source health technology system that comes to mind is the one the VA is using.

Re:TCO and open vs closed source

[Calindae]

Yes, uniform standards would go a long way in helping streamline and cut costs. I'm pharmacy technician and if every doctor used the same tech to submit scripts to us we could probably increas our workload by at least %10. Include insurance companies in standardization of their information and we could up our output by another %10. But insurance companies aren't in the business of paying for things, so they like it when you can't submit claims...

Re:TCO and open vs closed source

[ForrestFire439]

At face value it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. But if you think about the long-term costs of running the system (administrators, maintenance, hardware upgrades, software upgrades) it's not a job that the government is going to be able to perform efficiently.

Then you have the privacy concern. As it stands, if somebody wants access to my medical records then I need to explicitly authorize their release. In my opinion, this is the way it should be. I'm against anything that makes it easier for a third party to get my records without consent. There needs to be very strict language protecting the consumer's privacy.

Then you have provisions that have NOTHING to do with streamlining medical record transfer. Quoteth wikipedia:

"The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure the doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective so as to reduce costs and âoeguideâ the doctorâ(TM)s decisions (p.442, 446). Hospitals and doctors that are not âoemeaningful usersâ of the new system will face penalties by the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose âoemore stringent measures of meaningful use over timeâ (p.511, 518, 540-541). The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research ($1.1 billion)[26] (p.190-192) will slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are expensive. Medicare would apply a cost-effective standard set by the Federal Council for the elderly (p.464).[27] Drugs "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." It approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.[28]"

That's right folks! They're using this bill as a means to regulate the treatment your doctor provides. They, in their infinite wisdom, will decided whether the treatment your doctor is giving you is worth it. Got cancer? Oh, but you're 80 years old. Sorry. We've got more important people to take care of.

This is what you should expect because whenever the government gives you something they expect you to bow to their demands to make sure the money isn't "wasted." It's just like how people who have been convicted of drug-related offenses have trouble getting college grants. It's historic really, going back to the big city democrats in the early 1900's. They give you your meal ticket, you give them their power.

Re:TCO and open vs closed source

[Ostracus]

"That's right folks! They're using this bill as a means to regulate the treatment your doctor provides. "

Three words. Medicare, Medicaid, HMO. As long as someone else is footing the majority of the bill (employer, government) then you'll have someone else calling the shots. The only system where you're calling the shots (within reason and legality) is all the money comes from your pocket.

What and how

[binkless]

Just what is this supposed to stimulate and how?

Just thought I'd ask

Re:What and how

[Calindae]

Most likely it is used to stimulate the decreasing of costs in regards to the health care. Lowering costs=increase profits=strong economy=you, happy.

Re:What and how

[Calindae]

Yeah, it's just very well disguised as helping the country (which it will do, oddly enough..) Those dirty rascals!

Re:What and how

[RiotingPacifist]

why cant they just use the old techniques, like going to war while your family own shares in the biggest item on the military budget?

Props to Osirix...

[jkrise]

An excellent PACS viewer solution; unfortunately runs only on Macs; but is amazing. Developed by a set of dcotors who got fed up with Direct X and the quicksand that is WDDM and DRM nonsense.

Fully Open Source.

http://www.osirix-viewer.com/

Don't be obtuse

[fm6]

That's kind of a dumb question. (I might be excused from inferring your agenda from your question, but I'll refrain — we already have too much of that.) Anything that causes money to be spent stimulates the economy. The issue with the stimulus bill (including this part) is not whether it will stimulate the economy, but whether it will stimulate it enough to justify adding most of a terabuck to the national debt.

As for this particular question, have you been following the news at all? Part of the stimulus is building up our technical infrastructure. Do I have to explain how software fits into that? You may not agree that this will work, but how it's supposed to work should be obvious.

I wish this didn't pass

[hackstraw]

I'm all for the Open Source stuff and all, but every economist that I've read says that ironically, that massive layoffs are the beginning of the end of an economic downturn, and that it appears as though things will be back into shape around the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010, and none of their arguments are contingent upon a stimulus package. In fact, none mention it.

I think that the spending on the infrastructure and unemployment benefits and the like are sufficient. Both will help in the short term and long term, but tax cuts are BS. Ever since I've been alive every politician has cut taxes, yet they always seem to go up. I'm not complaining. Our taxes are low in the US. I'm stating the facts. The only people that seem to benefit from tax breaks are those that are unaffected by their tax burden or any financial burden whatsoever.

Yes, I voted for Obama, and I don't regret it, but I think the effectiveness of this bill does not warrant the cost.

The Slashdot circle jerk

[basementman]

I'm all for open source software, but it seems like Slashdot is the great open source circle jerk. We spend all of our time going omg open source software might appear in Project XYZ. In the end it never does, but even that glimmer of hope is enough for us to reach climax. If the average slashdotter's spent half the time working to promote open source to the average consumer, instead of jacking off, propriety software might be in trouble. Instead we stay in this relatively obscure internet community patting one another on the back when in the real world open source is getting it's ass kicked. Not a comment on the article I guess, but just something that I had to say.

Re:What open source health technology systems?

[koutbo6]

its probably bigger in the UK than it is in the US. this might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software
mind you, some of the research on open source I looked at considered openoffice a healthcare office suite.

just out of curiosity

[Scrameustache]

every economist that I've read says that ironically, that massive layoffs are the beginning of the end of an economic downturn, and that it appears as though things will be back into shape around the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010

What were those same economists saying this time last year about the economy at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009?

Re:i'm-sure-that-makes-us-socialists-somehow dept.

[Zonk (troll)]

Yeah, but no matter what it makes us, the US population in general will not know about it till well past 2010. It will take that long for our legislators to actually read the damn thing. Sure there will be watchdog groups who have read it before then, but like those that nay-sayed on the DMCA and US PATRIOT Act, they will be ignored until we are suffering the bad and unintended consequences of caveats in this bill.

You know, this bill is a perfect example of why we need DownsizeDC's Read the Bills Act. It is unacceptable that Congress votes for legislation they haven't fscking read. Please contact your Representative and Senators about that act.

Three other DownsizeDC campaigns that this bill perfectly shows the need for are:

Enumerated Powers Act - "It's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that."

One Subject at a Time Act - "Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support".

Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut
Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut - "Congress needs incentives to Downsize DC. H.R. 500 would provide such an incentive. If the federal government runs a deficit, then Congress will suffer a cut in pay. Tell your elected representatives to sponsor H.R. 500."

Re:Slashdotters?

[binarylarry]

It's a perfectly cromulent assertion.

Feature Not Bug

[iluvcapra]

The concept of the thing was to get as many paychecks printed as physically possible in the next 18 months. I guess you could call that "pork," but I think your problem is with Keynesian theory and not waste-fraud-abuse.

Here's the current job losses, in absolute numbers and percentages. These people can work, but aren't being asked to essentially because banks aren't lending. Banks aren't lending because they're D-Bags who spent the last 5 years defrauding each other and calling shitpiles gold. Even if the gov nationalized the banks tomorrow, most of them are still insolvent and the shock of that fact would probably cause a run on the dollar. The bad paper has to be gotten rid of, and it's better people be paid doing something instead of getting welfare or starving to death while the banks straighten out the incompetent. fucking. house.

If it means breaking every window in the country, the gov is going to do it to keep people working, because intact windows are less important than starving kids.

Re:What open source health technology systems?

[Tubal-Cain]

Ubuntu has in it's Add/Remove Programs:

• GNUmed
• Polyxmass
• AMIDE
• SOFA

And, double check the facts

[namespan]

US corporate taxes are the second-highest in the world behind Japan.

Is that statutory rates, or effective rates?

Also note that we're pretty solidly on the low end in personal income tax.

You can call US taxes a lot of things, but "low" is not one of them, especially considering the services what we get from the government in exchange for the taxes we pay.

If you want to argue that we could potentially be getting a better return on our tax dollars, then I'll agree. If nothing else, the example of per-capita public health spending comes to mind -- for a smaller amount, many other countries pull off universal insurance coverage. And I'm sure that aside, there's always work to do -- I think it'll be a long time before either by active policy study or by the evolutionary algorithm of competitive markets we've discovered most of the easy efficiency gains.

But if you want to argue that the U.S. isn't a pretty good place to live or do business, or if you want to argue that tax contributions to that are negligible, I'm off that boat.

RedHat is already onboard.

[hydertech]

A bit of time with the Google reveals Red Hat Enterprise Healthcare Platform which likely is the reason for this being included.

A quick review of the literature shows that several hospital software vendors have been converting their offering to run on a RHL backend.

That's likely where the main open source offerings will appear, replacing mainframes with cheap linux server solutions, and some database apps.