The courts are full of software disputes as complexities grow it’s harder to get to the very bottom at times as today there’s always a disconnect between the end user and the developers. This is not be design but rather the complex world we live in today and all goes back to perception. Developers and end users don’t share the same perception all the time and both learn from each other too. So is this a trend in healthcare software? Could be.
Software has now become more of a legal ground than it ever has. We don’t know what’s going to happen sometimes with new technology since we all used data platforms anymore. When it was on the desktop we had a lot more control but things have changed and they are not reverting back any time soon.
Right now too it’s a big question as to how much safety ONC certifying bodies for Meaningful Use will have. That is going to be interesting when they get that one figured out and then test the plan. We need good models today and there’s no guarantee those will work or if you have the right model. One thing is for sure though is that the delay with implementation does increase to ensure all possible areas of concern are covered. Right now event the certification software used by entities to certify EHRS is not working either, I guess a Northrop Grumman issue there. In California this week, $90 million down the drain as they can’t get the SAP software to work properly and do payroll, and I’m sure part of that is on the state’s side too with the integrity of the data a stuff gets corrupted a bit after years of us humans access records and updating information, can’t avoid that.
Well we can add this “hold harmless” on to the useless privacy statements that come along in some areas of healthcare I guess:) Is your EHR that you just spent millions of dollars on coming with a new “hold harmless” clause? Just a thought that crossed my mind. BD
For some healthcare organization, the conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10 may seem like the latest Y2K problem – fail to get it right and the consequences could be fatal. So many are being cautious by developing hold-harmless clauses to protect against any consequences of errors with the new conversion.
The biggest concerns raised during contract negotiations, she said, relate to negligent or intentional acts or omissions during the conversion that cause downstream problems. “These provisions come down to risk shifting and the amount of liability that [each] party is comfortable taking on,” Swank said.