Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU Health

gnuhealth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: GNU Health

#11

Post by rectang »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4
leakycap wrote: post #2

Heath centers pay unreal amounts of money for these kinds of commercial products, but in my experience the health centers themselves have very few technical resources. So the real "value" being delivered by the commercial software providers is often the setup, support, and hand-holding provided to customers who pay the crazy amounts. I imagine there will be a niche but high-paid market integrating these GNUHealth pro…

The problem open-source, and social media, and everything digital, has never overcome is accountability . Who do I sue, and who has insurance, if something goes wrong? Combine that with most small businesses having more money than time (just pay Gmail, don’t spend the required amount of time to self host), and open-source is stuck at being hobbyists if there is no corporate sponsorship.

> The problem open-source [...] has never overcome is accountability.

There are lots of organizations that provide a throat-to-choke-as-a-service, e.g. Red Hat.

Re: GNU Health

#13

Post by anjel »

pstuart wrote: post #7
leakycap wrote: post #2

Heath centers pay unreal amounts of money for these kinds of commercial products, but in my experience the health centers themselves have very few technical resources. So the real "value" being delivered by the commercial software providers is often the setup, support, and hand-holding provided to customers who pay the crazy amounts. I imagine there will be a niche but high-paid market integrating these GNUHealth pro…

Seems like a wonderful win/win opportunity to have the software be FOSS but enable small businesses to provide hosting/support/customization. The biggest win of all is if we had an open/extensible/maintainable data exchange format so that we could eliminate the need for paperwork. How many times must we fill out the same information, and then require the providers to keyboard it in?

Wasn't that in fact apropriated, launched and funded in the US under the Obama administration?

Re: GNU Health

#14

Post by kristopherleads »

That federation piece is super interesting. I'm actually giving a talk in Sweden this week about machine learning/AI training in the age of data sovereignty, and my suggestion was two-fold - better and more widespread adoption of things like Homomorphic Encryption and more federated systems that can distribute access and data in sovereign systems. This is a pretty important evolution in that direction!

Re: GNU Health

#15

Post by einpoklum »

I can't quite understand what is actually part of GNU Health:

> Social Medicine and Public Health

> Bioinformatics and Medical Genetics

Are these that a piece of software? scopes? Intents?

> Hospital Management (HMIS)

Ok, now this is software for sure, but what exactly does this mean? There are many things to manage within a hospital. Is this software for managing inventories? Scheduling? Personnel assignments and organizational relations? Patient flow records? And - is most of this stuff really specific to hospitals? e.g. how is this different from managing, say, a hotel?

> Laboratory Management (Occhiolino)

Again not so clear what kind of management we're talking about.

> Personal Health Record (MyGNUHealth)

Ok, this I (think I) understand.

> GNU Health embedded on Single Board devices

What exactly needs to get embedded? And - what kind of device? It could be a Raspberry Pi, that's a single-board device, right? So, just another general-purpose computer, but on ARM-based silicon. Or - it could be an, I don't know, some kind of scanner, like a portable UltraSound.

Bottom line: I'm sure it's a collection of useful software but very difficult to figure out exactly what, and how it's specific to healthcare.

Re: GNU Health

#16

Post by newsclues »

leakycap wrote: post #2

Heath centers pay unreal amounts of money for these kinds of commercial products, but in my experience the health centers themselves have very few technical resources. So the real "value" being delivered by the commercial software providers is often the setup, support, and hand-holding provided to customers who pay the crazy amounts. I imagine there will be a niche but high-paid market integrating these GNUHealth pro…

A good primer from Acquired https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/epic-systems-mychart

Re: GNU Health

#17

Post by dmd »

einpoklum wrote: post #15

I can't quite understand what is actually part of GNU Health: > Social Medicine and Public Health > Bioinformatics and Medical Genetics Are these that a piece of software? scopes? Intents? > Hospital Management (HMIS) Ok, now this is software for sure, but what exactly does this mean? There are many things to manage within a hospital. Is this software for managing inventories? Scheduling? Personnel assignments and or…

I work in healthcare IT and all of these have very specific meanings, and it’s very clear to the intended audience what these all are.

Re: GNU Health

#18

Post by headsman771 »

throw-the-towel wrote: post #10
leakycap wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just pay Gmail, don’t spend the required amount of time to self host Are you seriously suggesting a business put their contacts in the hands of Google, who has reportedly been totally capricious with account actions in the past and is notoriously difficult to contact when problems arise? > and open-source is stuck at being hobbyists if there is no corporate sponsorship Corpo sponsorship required for success? I gues…

Can you name one open-source project "used by millions" that does not have corporate sponsorship?

This implies corporate sponsorship is a requirement for, as opposed to result of, a projects usefulness. That has not been the case for most valuable open source software.

Re: GNU Health

#19

Post by pstuart »

anjel wrote: post #13
pstuart wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a wonderful win/win opportunity to have the software be FOSS but enable small businesses to provide hosting/support/customization. The biggest win of all is if we had an open/extensible/maintainable data exchange format so that we could eliminate the need for paperwork. How many times must we fill out the same information, and then require the providers to keyboard it in?

Wasn't that in fact apropriated, launched and funded in the US under the Obama administration?

I recall various tech/data initiatives during that admin and my search came up with this: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/hhs-announces-ne...

I don't work in healthcare but I do use their services and every intake interaction is the same paperwork dance, so it doesn't seem to have impacted providers themselves.

There's another element that needs address as well, which is the controlled dissemination of one's medical history. It should be easy peasy technology wise, with the only blockers being political/entrenched players sabotaging it.

Re: GNU Health

#20

Post by [deleted] »

throw-the-towel wrote: post #10
leakycap wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just pay Gmail, don’t spend the required amount of time to self host Are you seriously suggesting a business put their contacts in the hands of Google, who has reportedly been totally capricious with account actions in the past and is notoriously difficult to contact when problems arise? > and open-source is stuck at being hobbyists if there is no corporate sponsorship Corpo sponsorship required for success? I gues…

Can you name one open-source project "used by millions" that does not have corporate sponsorship?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN