Yes, this has been a concern for a while but it is likely lawsuits will continue to be blamed solely on the providers and their organizations.
One could draw a parallel between medical insurers (like BC/BS) and staff model HMOs. Insurers have been protected for a variety of reasons, and although that shows some signs of eroding, constructing a case versus the individual provider is much easier.
The medical record is a tool, and without it, the provider should still be able to provide adequate care (as so many do now without such records). Thus, negligence is still aimed at the provider even if the system goes down.
Some have argued software should be considered a 'medical device' and thus should be regulated by the FDA; thus, it would have to go through safety and efficacy trials to make it safe for patients. Arguments against this is how do you define the fixed device - does every new release constituent a new device? - and that the software never actually touches the patient. Again, any misinformation should be interpreted by the physician.
All good and valid points, for sure. Nonetheless, there are several companies that gross in excess of $100 million (I'm not saying they could pay for such an award; rather, they are interested in getting into such a business and have stayed in it despite the risks).
Interesting. They are no longer a major player in the vendor field (I would argue they never were), but perhaps they would like to become one again. A very reasonable point.
KP now is implementing Epic everywhere, so the IBM implementation must be on its way out if it isn't gone already.
Bush created a new office in HHS called ONCHIT (Office of National Health Coordinator for Information Technology). Brailer, who has dealt with health information exchange and the private, vended side of Health IT, was appointed the first coordinator. He requested these community-based opinions.
Since health care is complex and so far behind in IT, most people believe that most of the benefits from shared electronic health records are still large (as opposed to other industries that have adopted IT to a larger exist). The barriers in medicine are greater, though - the system is fragmented with misaligned incentives, so those who invest in IT rarely reap rewards; costs rise rapidly from other technology, like advanced treatment for cancer or expensive imaging equipment; variability in care leads to appropriate treatments being delivered only about 55% of the time; a highly educated workforce is resistant to change; and, of course, the hegemony in the availability and implementation in standards. Thus, there are a lot of reasons why IT is so far behind.
It is interesting that these IT companies have only recently entered the health IT field as more than hardware or generic software vendors; likely, they are seeing health prices rise as employers, or purchasers of health care, and feel that their expertise would help stem the tide. For some of the reasons mentioned above, and the obvious one that they probably don't really understand medicine, groups like HL7 and other standards organizations should receive the vast amount of attention and funding.
Yes, but it's worth pointing out that the same statement can be made of traditional encyclopedias.
I totally agree, and your further summary is excellent. I think we'll tend to see much more per topic in Wikipedia than Britannica, as the Wiki process always seems to add rather than subtract - you want to avoid ticking off your voluntary contributors by eliding their entire section:)
Wikipedia cannot guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here.
It contains a vast amount of information, none of which is true. Truth is a tricky concept, and the probabilistic analogy works beautifully - the articles may veer closer or farther from the truth, but they will never reach it.
However, they have something about so many concepts you will never find elsewhere - and, taken with grains of salt, one is also more informed about something when one leaves, even if it is the mistaken beliefs of others.
The fact that this made the news, though, as opposed to most libel cases, makes it worthwhile to discuss... at least to say it shouldn't have made the news.
I don't quite understand why this is cyberlibel other than it isn't quite slander (spoken 'transitory medium') and isn't quite libel (printed word). Maybe I answered my own question.
Essentially, the guy sent a chain email falsely impugning the professional character of the anthropologist. This was felt to negatively affect her character/professional outlook, and he was awarded damages. From the power of email, he was able to tell a lot more people, but it isn't really all that different from calling a thirty people and asking them to call 30 more... with false information.
For big corporations, it would be very hard to disprove statements you made about them if you say something general, like they suck. However, if you say 'Company X kills to make use of zombie labor', they might have a case against you.
Regular TiVo keeps track of all you watch and record, leading them to distribute great statistics like:
'The baring of one of [Janet] Jackson's breasts at the end of her duet with Justin Timberlake, which caused a flood of outraged phone calls to CBS, was replayed a record number of times by TiVo users, a company representative said Monday.'
Astronomers have developed filters for CCD to prevent infrared from getting in. I'm not sure how they would affect the rest of the recording of a movie in dim light, but they likely would foil this system.
Re:Looking forward to the cartoon strip!
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 1
Peter Principle really (where *everyone* is incompetent, not just managers)
The peter principle says that everyone who can do their job gets promoted until they reach a position where they are incompetent and cease getting promoted; so you only reach a state of global incompetence if you don't hire anyone new.
Employees can avoid it by refusing promotions for new responsibilities, just take promotions on pay.
The bureaucracy is really the problem, since those incompetent can't be demoted or fired (since they've protected their jobs like those in the book, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this has been a concern for a while but it is likely lawsuits will continue to be blamed solely on the providers and their organizations.
One could draw a parallel between medical insurers (like BC/BS) and staff model HMOs. Insurers have been protected for a variety of reasons, and although that shows some signs of eroding, constructing a case versus the individual provider is much easier.
The medical record is a tool, and without it, the provider should still be able to provide adequate care (as so many do now without such records). Thus, negligence is still aimed at the provider even if the system goes down.
Some have argued software should be considered a 'medical device' and thus should be regulated by the FDA; thus, it would have to go through safety and efficacy trials to make it safe for patients. Arguments against this is how do you define the fixed device - does every new release constituent a new device? - and that the software never actually touches the patient. Again, any misinformation should be interpreted by the physician.
All good and valid points, for sure. Nonetheless, there are several companies that gross in excess of $100 million (I'm not saying they could pay for such an award; rather, they are interested in getting into such a business and have stayed in it despite the risks).
Interesting. They are no longer a major player in the vendor field (I would argue they never were), but perhaps they would like to become one again. A very reasonable point. KP now is implementing Epic everywhere, so the IBM implementation must be on its way out if it isn't gone already.
Bush created a new office in HHS called ONCHIT (Office of National Health Coordinator for Information Technology). Brailer, who has dealt with health information exchange and the private, vended side of Health IT, was appointed the first coordinator. He requested these community-based opinions.
/ ONCHITFull_document.pdf
Since health care is complex and so far behind in IT, most people believe that most of the benefits from shared electronic health records are still large (as opposed to other industries that have adopted IT to a larger exist). The barriers in medicine are greater, though - the system is fragmented with misaligned incentives, so those who invest in IT rarely reap rewards; costs rise rapidly from other technology, like advanced treatment for cancer or expensive imaging equipment; variability in care leads to appropriate treatments being delivered only about 55% of the time; a highly educated workforce is resistant to change; and, of course, the hegemony in the availability and implementation in standards. Thus, there are a lot of reasons why IT is so far behind.
It is interesting that these IT companies have only recently entered the health IT field as more than hardware or generic software vendors; likely, they are seeing health prices rise as employers, or purchasers of health care, and feel that their expertise would help stem the tide. For some of the reasons mentioned above, and the obvious one that they probably don't really understand medicine, groups like HL7 and other standards organizations should receive the vast amount of attention and funding.
Note that hundreds of other recommendations were sent in - the one most interesting for me is the one from the consortium of people who have been struggling with these issues for decades (including HL7). Available at http://www.ehealthinitiative.org/assets/documents
you can reach me at davedorr9 AT NOWHAMMY NOWHAMMY yahoo DOT com
2.5) Claim you are changing very little, to dupe fans into buying tickets.
Yes, but it's worth pointing out that the same statement can be made of traditional encyclopedias.
:)
I totally agree, and your further summary is excellent. I think we'll tend to see much more per topic in Wikipedia than Britannica, as the Wiki process always seems to add rather than subtract - you want to avoid ticking off your voluntary contributors by eliding their entire section
Hear hear. Don't forget the disclaimer:
Wikipedia cannot guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here.
It contains a vast amount of information, none of which is true. Truth is a tricky concept, and the probabilistic analogy works beautifully - the articles may veer closer or farther from the truth, but they will never reach it.
However, they have something about so many concepts you will never find elsewhere - and, taken with grains of salt, one is also more informed about something when one leaves, even if it is the mistaken beliefs of others.
The fact that this made the news, though, as opposed to most libel cases, makes it worthwhile to discuss ... at least to say it shouldn't have made the news.
I don't quite understand why this is cyberlibel other than it isn't quite slander (spoken 'transitory medium') and isn't quite libel (printed word). Maybe I answered my own question.
... with false information.
Essentially, the guy sent a chain email falsely impugning the professional character of the anthropologist. This was felt to negatively affect her character/professional outlook, and he was awarded damages. From the power of email, he was able to tell a lot more people, but it isn't really all that different from calling a thirty people and asking them to call 30 more
For big corporations, it would be very hard to disprove statements you made about them if you say something general, like they suck. However, if you say 'Company X kills to make use of zombie labor', they might have a case against you.
Regular TiVo keeps track of all you watch and record, leading them to distribute great statistics like:
= rss&tag=feed&subj=news
'The baring of one of [Janet] Jackson's breasts at the end of her duet with Justin Timberlake, which caused a flood of outraged phone calls to CBS, was replayed a record number of times by TiVo users, a company representative said Monday.'
From http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-5152141.html?part
this much time on my hands
/. ?
/. community pretend to work (like me!), whilst those at the conference have given up that illusion.
As opposed to those who read
I guess the major difference is that a lot of the
crazy nut jobs
Not going there.
Astronomers have developed filters for CCD to prevent infrared from getting in. I'm not sure how they would affect the rest of the recording of a movie in dim light, but they likely would foil this system.
Peter Principle really (where *everyone* is incompetent, not just managers)
The peter principle says that everyone who can do their job gets promoted until they reach a position where they are incompetent and cease getting promoted; so you only reach a state of global incompetence if you don't hire anyone new. Employees can avoid it by refusing promotions for new responsibilities, just take promotions on pay.
The bureaucracy is really the problem, since those incompetent can't be demoted or fired (since they've protected their jobs like those in the book, etc).