I suspect that having a hosted solution -one that is very secure, could be quite lucrative.
This, on its own, is probably not something that folks could just throw onto any server, and expect reputable heath providers to use (at least, I hope not). Auditing and validation ain't cheap.
I applaud the idea, and hope that it works out. Most health providers still require faxes, which is a huge pain in the butt.
I have also heard many complaints about Epic Systems.
I wish you great luck. I sincerely hope it works out.
> Epic is not perfect
They have managed to do great consolidation, but the people that I hear complaints from, are the end-users (doctors, nurses, and first-line medical admins). They are a tough crowd to please (most of the medical folks I know personally, are technophobes), but I have seen some of the Epic interfaces, and they could use improvement; even for a techie, like me.
It appears as if Epic is pretty good at marketing to decision-makers (high-level administrators), and maybe have been a bit less diligent on UX design. Good money-making policy, but it also means that an open API opens the field to competitors that do a better job of serving end-users. That could give Epic a reason to throw up roadblocks. Incumbents don't like upstarts.
it's a case where the payer is different from the user. Payer wants to tick boxes, user wants to be efficient. I see this in education for example, where platforms like Canvas are ubiquitous (not implying that Canvas is not usable, they do a good job IMHO, but it must be like hell for them!).
This, on its own, is probably not something that folks could just throw onto any server, and expect reputable heath providers to use (at least, I hope not). Auditing and validation ain't cheap.
I applaud the idea, and hope that it works out. Most health providers still require faxes, which is a huge pain in the butt.
I have also heard many complaints about Epic Systems.