Open Source Study Included In US Stimulus Package 187
gclef writes "Buried deep in the details of the US stimulus package is an interesting provision that might go a long way toward helping Open Source software break into the medical area. It says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should study the availability of open source health technology systems (PDF, page 488), compare their TCO against proprietary systems and report on what they find no later than Oct 1, 2010. Slashdotters may also be interested in the language that starts on page 553 of that PDF to see just what the final package says about broadband."
The stimulus plan was approved by the Senate on Friday and is expected to be signed by President Obama by Monday.
what stimulus package? (Score:2, Interesting)
What and how (Score:4, Interesting)
Just what is this supposed to stimulate and how?
Just thought I'd ask
Re:TCO and open vs closed source (Score:3, Interesting)
I have the link somewhere but it appears the issue with medical systems isn't so much lack of technology, but uniform standards. Also the only open source health technology system that comes to mind is the one the VA is using.
Props to Osirix... (Score:5, Interesting)
An excellent PACS viewer solution; unfortunately runs only on Macs; but is amazing. Developed by a set of dcotors who got fed up with Direct X and the quicksand that is WDDM and DRM nonsense.
Fully Open Source.
http://www.osirix-viewer.com/ [osirix-viewer.com]
Re:what stimulus package? (Score:2, Interesting)
you mean the 800 billion (larger than any US budget prior to 1983) in miscellaneous pork?
One definition of pork is spending designed to stimulate the economy in a particular congress person's district. In that sense, as long the pork is evenly distributed throughout all the congressional districts then that's exactly what the US economy needs.
Another definition of pork is spending that doesn't have long term economic benefits. For example, if you spend money on a road, at the end of the day you have a road to use whereas, if you spend money on exotic dancers, at the end of the day you don't have anything other than pleasant memories - and the theory goes that roads make the economy more efficient while pleasant memories don't.
The original stimulus bill tried hard to spend on projects that were likely to lead to long term economic efficiency (infrastructure and education). Some Republican pork (e.g. tax cuts to spend on exotic dancers) may have been included in order to get the necessary Republican votes but the original stimulus tried hard to avoid being pork.
Re:TCO and open vs closed source (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish this didn't pass (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for the Open Source stuff and all, but every economist that I've read says that ironically, that massive layoffs are the beginning of the end of an economic downturn, and that it appears as though things will be back into shape around the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010, and none of their arguments are contingent upon a stimulus package. In fact, none mention it.
I think that the spending on the infrastructure and unemployment benefits and the like are sufficient. Both will help in the short term and long term, but tax cuts are BS. Ever since I've been alive every politician has cut taxes, yet they always seem to go up. I'm not complaining. Our taxes are low in the US. I'm stating the facts. The only people that seem to benefit from tax breaks are those that are unaffected by their tax burden or any financial burden whatsoever.
Yes, I voted for Obama, and I don't regret it, but I think the effectiveness of this bill does not warrant the cost.
The Slashdot circle jerk (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:TCO and open vs closed source (Score:2, Interesting)
Then you have the privacy concern. As it stands, if somebody wants access to my medical records then I need to explicitly authorize their release. In my opinion, this is the way it should be. I'm against anything that makes it easier for a third party to get my records without consent. There needs to be very strict language protecting the consumer's privacy.
Then you have provisions that have NOTHING to do with streamlining medical record transfer. Quoteth wikipedia:
"The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure the doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective so as to reduce costs and âoeguideâ the doctorâ(TM)s decisions (p.442, 446). Hospitals and doctors that are not âoemeaningful usersâ of the new system will face penalties by the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose âoemore stringent measures of meaningful use over timeâ (p.511, 518, 540-541). The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research ($1.1 billion)[26] (p.190-192) will slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are expensive. Medicare would apply a cost-effective standard set by the Federal Council for the elderly (p.464).[27] Drugs "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." It approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.[28]"
That's right folks! They're using this bill as a means to regulate the treatment your doctor provides. They, in their infinite wisdom, will decided whether the treatment your doctor is giving you is worth it. Got cancer? Oh, but you're 80 years old. Sorry. We've got more important people to take care of.
This is what you should expect because whenever the government gives you something they expect you to bow to their demands to make sure the money isn't "wasted." It's just like how people who have been convicted of drug-related offenses have trouble getting college grants. It's historic really, going back to the big city democrats in the early 1900's. They give you your meal ticket, you give them their power.
Feature Not Bug (Score:3, Interesting)
The concept of the thing was to get as many paychecks printed as physically possible in the next 18 months. I guess you could call that "pork," but I think your problem is with Keynesian theory and not waste-fraud-abuse.
Here's the current job losses, in absolute numbers and percentages [calculatedriskblog.com]. These people can work, but aren't being asked to essentially because banks aren't lending. Banks aren't lending because they're D-Bags who spent the last 5 years defrauding each other and calling shitpiles gold. Even if the gov nationalized the banks tomorrow, most of them are still insolvent and the shock of that fact would probably cause a run on the dollar. The bad paper has to be gotten rid of, and it's better people be paid doing something instead of getting welfare or starving to death while the banks straighten out the incompetent. fucking. house.
If it means breaking every window in the country, the gov is going to do it to keep people working, because intact windows are less important than starving kids.