

Google’s Eric Schmidt on Open Source and Health IT - yanw
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/01/11/jp-morgan-healthcare-googles-schmidt-on-open-source-and-health-it/

======
TomOfTTB
I found this paragraph interesting from not just a Health IT perspective but
from an "understanding Google" perspective...

“If I were not doing what I’m doing and I wanted to do something in health
care … I would go to all of the research universities and would try to figure
out where the best, interesting IT software is that can be open-sourced,” he
said at a health-IT panel discussion. “My guess is that a platform like that
would be remarkably different from the platforms that we are using today,” he
said.

He wouldn't go to the patients to find out what they want or to the Hospitals
to find out what they need he'd turn to the research community. I'm not sure
whether that's a good or bad thing. It probably has aspects of both.

But it's instructional because that's not what normal software company's tend
to do. For example, when Microsoft wants to build a health platform they go to
hospitals and do usability tests with doctors and nurses.

~~~
phlux
I think he was speaking a little too soon... obviously thats a _too
engineering_ focused response.

There is so much thought going on in this area, the next year is going to be
very interesting in healthcare.

~~~
TomOfTTB
I don't think it has anything to do with an engineering response. The issue is
in defining the problem where as engineering is about applying knowledge to a
problem.

The theory I'm putting forth is that Google tends to see things in the
abstract. "The world needs a web based office package" vs "Company X has
100,000 employees and they want this feature". The later response is how a
traditional software company like Microsoft thinks.

So for Google solving the problem of medical records for the world means going
to people they perceive as deep thinkers (like researchers) and devising a
system in a vacuum. Where as Microsoft would go to the line-staff level and
design up.

(and for the record I'm not necessarily condemning either strategy. In fact I
think the best possible scenario is to have two companies with those
philosophies competing with each other)

~~~
abhikshah
I interpreted his quote differently. The difference is not in abstract vs
concrete but in open vs closed.

Presumably, the researchers building open-source EMR systems do talk to
patients and hospitals rather than building abstract software in a void. They
don't, however, need to worry about profitability and would be more free to
integrate with other systems and not try to create lock-in.

------
phlux
Sounds like Eric hasnt heard of OpenVista.

Also, he is simplifying the problem. I agree with him - but there are some
major factors in this problem that are more than just the simple "go open
source" solution he seems to propose.

Namely, it's about how organizations have made decisions and their ENTIRE
WORKFLOW is designed around the EHR app they use.

~~~
niels_olson
We have got to stop talking about VistA. It casts a cloud over the whole
conversation. Look at what's coming out of the Regenstrief Institute. They
built some of the original VistA components (like CHCS) and have built other
systems from the ground up, like OpenMRS.

~~~
phlux
My point was he spoke as though there were no efforts on open source EHR.

The fact is, that there is a lot of work going on - what is needed is actual
leadership.

