There’s an important call to action below. If you care about making healthcare more responsive to us, and less responsive to vendors, please read to the end. This is short.
Thanks to all of you who submitted comments on this week’s post, offering feedback. Here is the PDF I submitted today, which is being distributed to all members of the Meaningful Use workgroup.
Full text of original comments received here by the deadline were included in Appendix A, along with a link to that post so interested readers can see subsequent discussion and any later comments. Keep ‘em coming!
Want to know how cool this community is? We had several times more responses on this subject than were received by the similar post on The Healthcare Blog – and none of theirs had actual feedback! (Just the usual THCB kvetching.:–))
More importantly, consider how vital this work is. To quote from Matthew Holt’s post over there:
It goes without saying, but I’m going to say it again anyway, that Josh [Seidman]’s shepherding of the meaningful use criteria plus his earlier lobbying of the process from the outside HHS was very instrumental in making the consumer such a big part of phase 1 of the meaningful use criteria. However, you can be assured that there are lots of people wanting to put the brakes on any expansion of the consumer-facing meaningful use criteria.
You hear that? People wanting to stop our involvement? If we want healthcare to become more patient-centric we must stop them, whoever they are!
Yet only two people added feedback on the government’s blog. That’s bad news!
So thank you for participating here. I’m proud that when the government finally starts asking, we here are speaking up. That’s the Society for Participatory Medicine.
In light of that, if you want to add more hollering, speak up and I’ll take your words with me.
When was the last time the government explicitly asked you while the rules were being made? Some of us are hardened and just get cynical afterward. Now’s your chance.
Thank you for participating.