Just before Xmas the Ministry of Health put out a release trumpeting a new agreement signed between the Health Sector and Microsoft.
It claimed this would help Government achieve its goal of an adaptive, innovative and continually improving health system.
The Ministry of Health, ACC, DHBs and the New Zealand Blood Service are part of the collective sector agreement.
It sounds good and if it saves money then great. But could we see the facts please?
Is there an analysis of how it would save money,and where that money would be saved from if another system was used? Has there been a comparison with using open source software?
If not, then their claims are meaningless. Recently both the Ministry of Health and Waikato DHB were hit by Windows virus that caused huge disruption. What was the cost of that?
Could we have some transparency?
I’m just trying to work out how it will save a cent?!?! I agree that if it works well, and improves service and is a more efficient software etc. that its good, but where is the evidence?
Wasnt this an outcome of the virus meltdown at Waikato DHB, Microsoft signed up an expensive services contract to get the hospital network up and running
MmmmM as I understand it the virus that affected Waikato University had been around for a year and they had neglected to update their virus security.
OOps I meant Waikato Hospital not University.
James, one of the advantages of Open Source is that you can keep the same system but change suppliers and support. You are not beholden to the suppliers to tell you when you have to upgrade to the next version, buy new hardware etc.
Those changes alone will save a fortune. Running the whole thing on Open standards will further improve the savings.
Vik :v)
Was this just for software though? Or is this a larger ICT contract?
The other question to ask is whether this was put out to competitive tender and if not, why not?
Microsoft? Gulp.
Don Christie’s question is right on the money. We need to see these sorts of contracts put out to open tender. That way we’d get the MOH etc having to specify exactly what they’re trying to achieve with the money they’re spending rather than have a position that Microsoft can provide the solution if MOH ever work out what the problems are.
Vic
..is right on about open source.
A couple recent joint DHB efforts have stagnated over details of an patient centric, distributed, universal electronic health data system to replace creaking legacy systems and carry the country into the future.
Selection of a proprietary vendor, while shifting the political risk of choice, exposes the DHB’s and New Zealanders to the risk of vendor failure.
Open Source (from operating systems, to desktop admin functions to EHR) goes a long way toward overcoming single vendor problems, i.e. delays, multiple customizations, sunsetting, increasing costs.
Open source use in the health sector could create a new employment sector by combining the smaller private sector New Zealand based IT companies through an entity that could channel Open source to meet the needs for healthcare information digitization.
Vic has kicked over a rock and uncovered a topic that needs more airing in the NZ health sector.
[...] ITC spokesperson, Clare Curran, pointed to a pre-Christmas press release by the Ministry of Health claiming “health dollars” (whatever they are) have been saved [...]
Bulk purchase agreements, like this one appears to be, are “old think”, and, while they might “save” money they ultimately do not align health IT strategy with improving health outcomes. What is needed is a fundamental paradigm shift. What will make a difference is integrating health IT innovation and evolution with the practice and concepts of evidence based medicine. For that you need break out of the straight-jacket of legacy software business models and embrace open, collaborative processes and business models.
p.s. the UK entered into similar agreements with Microsoft back in 2001… have a look at the Connecting for Health initiative and weap.
Clare’s right on the money about needing a reference point.
Say I wanted to send a message to someone. My options, email or snail mail. Email instantly saves me money because I’m not needing to go out and get a 50 cent stamp (or however much it is these days). Please…. some point of comparison.
On the other hand, and playing devil’s advocate, I’m told that healthcare software is very windows-centric. Are there switching costs involved in moving to an open source platform?
In which case, I’d rather tax payer’s money was spent now on removing the dependancy on a proprietary platform and spent on a system that can be maintained in the future.
So I guess my question is, does the cost savings save us money right this very moment or is there any view to the future in this decision?
Shades of INCIS? shudder!!!!