Crash and Burn

The saga of our IMPAX crashes continues. For the full background story, read THIS post and THIS post. Sadly, we have no resolution to this point.

Discussions with Agfa have yielded only the suggestion that we change our workflow, because it is the activation of the “dictation” button while images are incoming that leads to the crash. That is actually not an unreasonable suggestion, but it is only a small part of the solution. Having my client crash when I do a “no-no” is an even bigger “NO-NO” in the software world. An anonymous Canadian commenter on my last post said this:

I hope Agfa is not implying that it is acceptable in any way to get this type of error message; you are offering a work around, not a solution. As an Impax user (and someone with a degree in Computer Science) I find it totally unacceptable that a live clinical product has this type of bug. Furthermore, Agfa makes little or no active effort to correct or prevent these types of bugs.

Frankly, I have given up on reporting bugs. The usual response from Agfa support is…after 1 week level 1 support says you are doing something wrong…after 1 month level 2 support says they will look into it, and have never seen this problem before…after several months level 3 support says ‘Oh yes, that is a known issue, but it has not been given priority’.

And indeed this one turns out to be a known issue. It’s time to give it priority, before it gets too cold up there in Waterloo.

Here are two quick and dirty coding fixes that would keep me from whining louder and losing sales for Agfa:

  1. Throw up a dialogue box when the error conditions occur saying something like, “There are new images being received for this study…please stand by.”
  2. Grey-out the dictation button.

I prefer the first, personally.

Crashing the client is NOT an acceptable method of warning me about something. Fix this, please. Your customers are watching, and based on the comments I’m receiving, they aren’t surprised by this. Is that a reputation you want to cultivate? I didn’t think so.

Advertisements

Stage Right

Every so often, I run across a little program or tool that makes my life easier. Dr Martin Crowe, Consultant Radiologist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn,Norfolk in the UK has authored just such a program. StageCraft, found at http://www.tumourstager.com/, is a simple little application that helps the radiologist (or clinician) with TNM staging for a number of cancers. Below is the window for lung cancer:

With a few clicks, the TNM classification and staging are displayed. The app is packed with a lot of other helpful information such as the Fleischner Society guidelines for solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) workup, and simple displays of the mediastinal nodal stations:

I have only one bit of advice for Dr. Crowe: Charge for this little gem! It’s well worth it!

Socialized PACS

I’ve commented in an earlier post about the Britain’s difficult experiences with EMR. As part of their massive IT initiative, there has been an attempt to introduce PACS as well throughout the system. You can have a look at the NHS PACS site here, with numerous links to history and other information. From what I can gather, the project has been largely successful, although there have been some problems.

The “Stakeholders’ Brochure” discusses the British PACS experience:


Prior to the advent of the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) it had taken 50 trusts some 14 years to implement PACS. But in the last three years, the national PACS programme – a key element within NPfIT – saw the pace accelerated massively and all hospital trusts now have experience of the technology.

The NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) is actually the umbrella under which national EMR and the various PACS are deployed, and the whole thing is itself under “a new agency called NHS Connecting for Health (CfH) was formed to deliver the programme. CfH absorbed both staff and workstreams from the abolished NHS Information Authority, the organisation it replaced.”

This very ambitious program includes the following particulars:

*The NHS Care Records Service (NHS CRS)

*Choose and Book, an electronic booking service

*A system for the Electronic Transmission of Prescriptions (ETP)

*A new national broadband IT network for the NHS (N3) (see also external link to BT N3 website)

*Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS) *IT supporting GPs including the Quality Management and Analysis System (QMAS) and a system for GP to GP record transfer.

*Contact — a central email and directory service for the NHS.

The Spine

The creation of a core data storage and messaging system, known as the Spine, is key to providing electronic NHS Care Records for every patient.The Spine will:

*Store personal characteristics of patients, such as demographic information

*Store summarised clinical information which may be important for the patient’s future treatment and care

*Provide the security systems required to restrict access to the national and local systems

*Provide a secondary uses service, using anonymized data to provide business reports and statistics for research, planning and public health delivery

*Bind together all the local IT systems within the programme.

Clusters and Local Service Providers

The programme divides England into five areas known as “clusters”: Southern, London, Eastern, North West and West Midlands, and North East. For each cluster, a different Local Service Provider (LSP) was contracted to be responsible for delivering services at a local level. This structure was intended to avoid the risk of committing to one supplier which might not then deliver; by having a number of different suppliers implementing similar systems in parallel, a degree of competition would be present which would not be if a single national contract had been tendered.

As of October 2005, four different industry consortia are LSPs:

*CSC Alliance – North West and West Midlands Cluster

*Accenture – North East and Eastern Clusters

*The Fujitsu Alliance – Southern Cluster

*Capital Care Alliance – London

National Application Service Providers

In addition to these LSPs the programme has appointed National Service Providers (NASPs) who are responsible for services that are common to all users e.g. Choose and Book and the national elements of the NHS Care Records Service that support the summary patient record and ensure patient confidentiality and information security. As of October 2005, the NASPs are:

*BTNHS Care Records Service and N3

*Atos Origin and Cerner – Choose & Book

*Cable and Wireless – Contact

Obviously, this is an incredibly ambitious project, one that should be considered successful if it works at all, and indeed it does, as near as I can tell, anyway. But that’s the good news.

A humongous project like this is going to have some cost issues, and apparently NPfIT does. From the Wiki:

Originally expected to cost £2.3 billion (bn) over three years, in June 2006 the total cost was estimated by the National Audit Office to be £12.4bn over 10 years, and the NAO also noted that “…it was not demonstrated that the financial value of the benefits exceeds the cost of the Programme”[14]. Similarly, the the British Computer Society (2006) concluded that “…the central costs incurred by NHS are such that, so far, the value for money from services deployed is poor”[15]. Officials involved in the programme have been quoted in the media estimating the final cost to be as high as £20bn, indicating a cost overrun of 440% to 770%[16].

In April 2007, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons issued a damning 175-page report on the programme. The Committee chairman, Edward Leigh, claimed “This is the biggest IT project in the world and it is turning into the biggest disaster.” The report concluded that, despite a probable expenditure of 20 billion pounds “at the present rate of progress it is unlikely that significant clinical benefits will be delivered by the end of the contract period.”[2]

The costs of the venture should have been lessened by the contracts signed by the IT providers making them liable for huge sums of money if they withdrew from the project; however, when Accenture withdrew in September 2006, then Director-General for NPfIT Richard Granger charged them not £1bn, as the contract permitted, but just £63m[17]. Granger’s first job was with Andersen Consulting[18], which later became Accenture.

Oooops…. Sounds rather like having certain members of a larGE company having much to do with CCHIT, but I digress.

The Southern Cluster had a bit of a problem. Initially,

GE Healthcare, a division of General Electric (NYSE:GE), today announced that it has signed a contract with Fujitsu Services Ltd., the designated Local Service Provider for the southern region of the National Health Service’s (NHS’s) National Programme for IT. Under the agreement, GE Healthcare will provide its Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) technology that will enable the conversion of hospitals and clinics to a new digitised system for storing, retrieving and displaying patients’ medical images.

The UK government announced in May that the NHS in England will install nationwide digital imaging systems that allow medical images of a patient to be transmitted on demand around hospitals and to remote sites for expert medical scrutiny and diagnosis. The National Programme for IT is being implemented into five regional clusters, the southern cluster (covering the South East and South West) being the largest with approximately a third of the country’s PACS.

GE Healthcare will supply PACS technology for the new digitised records system to its partner Fujitsu. PACS allows images such as x-rays and other medical scans to be digitized, stored and transmitted electronically, avoiding the need for cumbersome film development processes and delivery by post or by hand. Eventually, PACS, together with other components of the new IT system, will enable the electronic storage, display and retrieval of a patient’s records at the touch of a button from anywhere in the country. (Business Wire, 11/22/04)

But something then went haywire:

Fujitsu may not have its contract renewed to provide Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS) services to NHS trusts in the south of England.

The development comes two weeks after Fujitsu had its £1.1bn contract as local service provider (LSP) for the region terminated on 28 May, following its withdrawal from contract re-negotiations. Fujitsu had previously been expected to get the lucrative PACS deal renewed.

When the LSP contract was terminated, the linked PACS contract was also ended, leaving NHS trusts across the south with systems that were not covered by formal support contracts. (eHealthEurope, 6/16/2008)

What happened to Fujitsu? There was of course finger-pointing:

Fujitsu was working with medical imaging specialist GE Medical Systems on the project and was to provide support until 2013.

Negotiations had broken down due to what Fujitsu claimed were too-strict conditions on payment and deliverables, according to media reports that day. The Connecting for Health programme – which started in 2002 and was scheduled for completion 2010 – is already four years late, they said. (HospitalManagement.net 5/30/2008)

From eHealthEurope:

The development comes two weeks after Fujitsu had its £1.1bn contract as local service provider (LSP) for the region terminated on 28 May, following its withdrawal from contract re-negotiations. Fujitsu had previously been expected to get the lucrative PACS deal renewed.
When the LSP contract was terminated, the linked PACS contract was also ended, leaving NHS trusts across the south with systems that were not covered by formal support contracts.

E-Health Insider has been told that as a result, key clinical systems in the region – including PACS, Radiology Information Systems (RIS), child health, Map of Medicine and Cerner Millennium – are only covered by a “promise” of support from the ex-LSP. . .

This would have followed the pattern set in September 2006, when Accenture walked as LSP in the North and North East of England, but still retained its PACS contracts.
In a 28 May letter to NHS chief executives in the south about the ending of Fujitsu’s LSP contract, Gordon Hextall, head of NHS CfH said: “However, the PACS and RIS contracts are not expected to be affected by this outcome.”
The agency now appears to have reversed its position and to be proceeding on the assumption the terminated PACS contract will not be renewed.

Uhhh. . . Two of the cluster providers walked? This doesn’t sound good. . . But Fujitsu apparently is continuing to support its RIS/PACS:


Fujitsu has delivered PACS in full and it is generally working well. Although there was a single contract covering both the Care Records Service and PACS and the termination of the contract therefore covers both items, the intention of both Fujitsu and the Department is that Fujitsu will continue to deliver PACS’ and RIS’ services in the South, subject to contract, at least in the short term prior to a general transition to an alternative supplier subject to the agreement of terms. Without prejudice to Fujitsu’s legal rights, Fujitsu continues to provide these services pending confirmation by the Department of commercial cover. (Parliament document, The National Programme for IT in the NHS: Progress since 2006)

For much more on the Fujitsu situation, have a look at pages 45 and on.

The reprecussions of the Fujitsu withdrawl are multitude, and Parliament wan’t really pleased with how things had been going:

Recent progress in deploying the new care records systems has been very disappointing, with just six deployments in total during the first five months of 2008–09. The completion date of 2014–15, four years later than originally planned, was forecast before the termination of Fujitsu’s contract and must now be in doubt. The arrangements for the South have still not been resolved.

However, this aspect was indeed recently solved:

NHS Connecting for Health has confirmed that responsibility for Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) and Radiology Information Systems (RIS) in the south of England will be transferring from Fujitsu to the CSC Alliance (CSCA).

Fujitsu, following the termination of its contract in May 2008, has been continuing to support PACS and RIS in most of the trusts encompassed by three strategic health authorities (SHAs): South East Coast, South Central and the South West. It also supports a further three trusts outside of these areas.

The SHAs and NHS Connecting for Health have been working to put in place new arrangements to ensure continuity of service provision for PACS and RIS. A contract has now been signed with CSCA which will see it steadily assume responsibility for PACS and RIS in the trusts previously supported by Fujitsu. The contract period with CSCA is effective from 20th July 2009 through to June 2013.
Fujitsu will continue to support trusts until November 2009 and support service transition activities until the end of March 2010.

OK, problem solved, at least for now. But this betrays the problem with the philosophy. To have one monolithic vendor covering an area could work very well, or very poorly. And one more thing. Particular regions of Great Britain decided which vendors to utilize. Let me rephrase that. The bureaucrats of the NHS of the particular quasi-independent clusters decided which vendors to foist on the hospitals in their area. One more time. THE GOVERNMENT CHOSE THE PACS FOR THE DOCS. How does that sound? I’ve had the joy of an IT department dictating the decision for me, and I didn’t like it one bit. But having the government choose, likely by lowest bidder, is absolutely asinine.

From all I can gather, the system does work, and the NHS took on a monumental job in trying to make it work for an entire nation, albeit a smaller nation than ours. Would we in America be willing to take on the sacrifices and limitations entailed by this approach? Well? Anyone?

Some Questions About The Health Care Plan …WARNING–NON-PACS CONTENT!

Last Thursday, House Republicans published ten “common sense” questions arising from President Obama’s health care reform speech. (Hat tip to ADoc2Be who mentions this on her own blog.) Here are the statements from the speech and the questions thereof:

President Barack Obama: “Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to the breaking point.”

Common Sense Question: If we are at the “breaking point,” then why doesn’t your government-run insurance plan start until 2013?

Dalai’s Comment: Clearly, this is timed to start AFTER the 2012 election. How stupid does Mr. Obama think we are? Wait, don’t answer that. Whilst I agree that something needs to be done, I am in utter disbelief that GM and Chrysler were felt to be greater “emergencies” than health care, so horrible that we had to borrow trillions of dollars against our descendants. Health care, a life-or-death proposition if there ever was one, has to be pre-funded and deficit-neutral, which means increasing taxes in some stealthy manner. Add the omission of tort-reform and we realize that this is nothing more than a power-grab, an attempt to place a huge chunk of our economy under governmental control, as well as a poorly-disguised scheme to redistribute wealth.

President Barack Obama: “There are now 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”

Common Sense Question: On August 20, you said 46 million Americans were uninsured. What happened to 16 million Americans?

Dalai’s Comment: “Cannot” get coverage or “will not” get coverage? There is a huge difference. The numbers are too nebulous to be the full basis for anything. I agree completely that something has to be done about this, having a child that will be uninsurable because of a chronic illness once he leaves my policy. But we do not have to destroy what we have to achieve that goal.

President Barack Obama: “And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”

Common Sense Question: Does that mean 15 million Americans will lose their health care before your government plan starts in 2013?

President Barack Obama: “We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”

Common Sense Question: Then why do people travel from around the world to receive health care in the United States?

Dalai’s Comment: As noted by my fellow blogger, ADoc2Be, we are not as healthy as we should be due to a significant number of us (including me) making bad choices. We overeat (that’s my vice) we smoke, we drink to excess. And then we want to make that someone else’s fault. We the physicians can and do try to limit these behaviours in our patients, but to little avail.

Those with means around the world in vast majority come here for high-level care, not to Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, or a host of other nations with “progressive” medical care. Sorry, but that’s the fact, Jack.

President Barack Obama: “Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.”

Common Sense Question: Didn’t the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office say that the health care plan you have endorsed will add $239 billion to our annual deficits over the next ten years?

President Barack Obama: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.”

Common Sense Question: If we can pay for “most” of health care reform by controlling waste and inefficiency, then why does a $900 billion health care plan include $820 billion in tax increases?

President Barack Obama: “…no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.”

Common Sense Question: Do you object to House Democrats defeating an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup that would have explicitly prohibited federal funding of abortion under a government-run health care plan?

President Barack Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.”

Common Sense Question: Do you oppose the House Democrat health care plan, H.R. 3200, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said will add $239 billion to our annual deficits over the next ten years and “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” thereafter? If so, which Democrat plan are you going to support?

Dalai’s Comment: See above. The finances don’t make any sense at all.

President Barack Obama: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan…the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over the next 10 years…”

Common Sense Question: If there is so much “waste and inefficiency” in Medicare and Medicaid – two government-run health care plans – then won’t further government involvement in health care lead to further “waste and inefficiency”?

Dalai’s Comment: And why can’t we eliminate the “waste and inefficiency” RIGHT NOW, instead of waiting until 2013? And just HOW are we going to eliminate waste? Uh, maybe we should rephrase that…

President Barack Obama: “And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen.”

Common Sense Question: Will you agree to meet with House Republican leaders to discuss health care reform, as they requested almost four months ago?

Dalai’s Comment: Has Bart sent in his plan yet?

And here are some additional questions, food for thought, mainly. . .

Just what is our goal here? Do we wish to insure everyone? What is the basis for this desire? Are we saying morally that all life is important, and everyone needs to have access to care, and should that care be equal for all? If so, we must insure everyone possible. And I mean EVERYONE. Illegals, citizens of other nations, etc. If the moral imperative exists to provide health care, then we must do so for all. GLOBALLY. Mr. Obama’s plan, and the mentality that we must provide (equally is implied) for all of our citizens just as the Socialist nations of the world seem to be doing is apparently based on flawed, jingoistic, nationalistic ideals, yes? It says that we have an obligation to help ONLY our fellow citizens, and how could that be true? A life is a life is a life, right? IF this is our goal, then we cannot allow distinction between a American’s life, and an illegal-alien’s life. Or the life of someone in Africa? Or India? Or China? And, if all life needs to be preserved, how do we justify allowing (or encouraging) abortion?

I’m just asking philosophical questions. Just something to think about. Here’s some more to consider.

We will need quite a few more physicians to accomplish the goal of caring for EVERYONE, even if we incorrectly and unfairly limit this only to every US citizen. How will they train? Those of us who went through medical school know that the patients who present to a training institution (say, a county hospital with a high indigent population) are treated by medical students and residents, albeit under the supervision of an experienced physician. IF everyone deserves equal care, is this FAIR? Would you submit to having a junior medical student suture a laceration on your daughter’s face? Why should an indigent have to suffer this humiliation? That’s not FAIR, is it?

And another thought. My daughter the pre-med has given me the following analogy, gleaned from her Ethics class: You are walking down a country road, and you see a baby floating face-down in the middle of a nearby pond. Could you just continue to walk by and live with yourself later? Of course not. In this tale, the uninsured are represented by the baby, and we cannot live with ourselves without helping them, and the assumption is made that we aren’t helping them. The analogy is heart-rending, but not completely accurate. First, we DO help. My group writes off literally millions of dollars in care for “self-pay” patients. We all know that “self-pay” means “no-pay” but we care for them anyway. Between that and the 50% I presently pay in taxes, I’m doing a HELL OF A LOT more for the poor than just about anyone who wants to criticize me. How much more should I do? Secondly, we can assume that the baby didn’t want to end up face down in the pond. But many of our most ill citizens got that way via the vices I outlined above. They may not have explicitly chosen to acquire lung cancer when they lit up a cigarette, but they knew the consequences and rolled the dice. Do we have the obligation to pay for their care? Does an alcoholic dying of cirrhosis deserve a liver-transplant at our expense? Is it FAIR, is it RIGHT?

Back to an earlier point. If this is such an emergency, if insuring EVERYONE is the FAIR and RIGHT thing to do, then we should do so with all possible haste, and damn the cost. We should print money to cover this overwhelming necessity, well, no, let’s just declare the health care is FREE, that anything and everything everyone needs is to be delivered gratis. Doctors and other health care workers, and especially pharmaceutical companies won’t be paid, because filthy profit should have no say in health care, should it? No, let’s do this right, folks.

While we’re at it, it isn’t FAIR that there are people in this country, and in the rest of the world, for that matter, who don’t have enough to eat. Starting now, all food needs to be given away free as well, since people may die or become ill without adequate nutrition. OK, let’s start slow. We’ll have socialized nationalized food-care, and ultimately take this global. Healthy meals for all! Oh, by the way, we get to tell you what you can eat and what you can’t. It isn’t FAIR for Dr. Dalai to eat steak (production of which has a huge carbon footprint, and is a very inefficient way to consume food resources), while an impoverished child in North Korea has to eat pine needles.

I could go on, but I won’t. Some of my readers have probably blown Circle-of-Willis aneurysms by now, and they will be overtaxing their local health-care delivery systems.

As I did before the last election, I am simply asking you to think about the implications of what you are demanding. I will very stubbornly continue to think that the current “emergency” push for health care revision is nothing more than a sham that has conned a lot of kind-hearted folks (mainly liberals) into BELIEVING. I do realize that our health-care system needs reform, and I doubt that anyone would seriously argue otherwise. But think long and hard about the change you wish to bring about, and why you want it. Think.

Bart’s Healthcare Plan

My friend Bart is a Radiation Oncologist, as well as a character of the first order. He is a very sharp guy, and when he puts his mind to a problem, he generally solves it. Bart has now turned his attention to the insurance and healthcare debate. The original text from Bart’s healthcare plan is presented below, and he discussed it (rather briefly) with Ed Schultz on MSNBC. Mr. Obama, you wanted alternatives to your plan for Governmental Medicine; here’s a good one:

THE PLAN

1. This plan calls for every family in America to be covered with catastrophic health insurance paid for by the Federal Government. This policy would cover each family from $200,000 to $1.5 million. Statistics suggest it would only be accessed by less than 1.3% of the population. The purchase price of this plan is $60/month/family. Assuming there are 90 million households in America, the price of this would be approximately $5.5 billion.

2. The short-fall incurred by families and individuals from $0 through $200,000 would be covered by a separate policy. This policy would be furnished by businesses, individuals, or in the case of Medicare, the disabled and other retirees, the federal government. The deductible and the terms of the policy would be put out to bid with every insurance company having the ability to bid on the contracts. This bidding process would involve being able to go across state lines and could include large volume discounts. If a company is satisfied with their present agent, they could choose to continue with their own coverage. An example that I use is a $2000 deductible with a maximum exposure to the insurance company of $200,000. Assuming a company has 5,000 employees this policy could be purchased from my local BCBS for $250/month. The savings are realized to the insurance company because their maximum exposure is only $200,000/ policy.

COST

1. The total cost of the catastrophic plan covering every household in America would be approximately $5.5 – $6 billion. The insurance companies would be able to offer vastly discounted rates due to the size of the pool being insured. The insurance companies would profit from this because statistics show that no more than 1.5% of the population would ever use this amount of insurance in a given year.

2. Open competition between the various insurance companies would come into play with the individual policies. They would have to include pre-existing conditions, portability, and could be shopped across state lines. Individuals who could not afford the cost of this policy would be subsidized through the federal government or through tax credits for businesses. Obviously, the provisions and restrictions on these policies would have to be negotiated with the help of the government.

3. If the government was required to pay for 1/3 of the population or 100million people at $250/month ($3,000/year) this would be $300 billion.

NOTE: The cost of Medicare alone in 2007 was $440 billion.

ADVANTAGES

1. Every man, woman and child in America would be covered.

2. The cost of this program would be less than Medicare alone thus eliminating the need for higher taxes or surcharges on businesses and individuals.

3. Insurance coverage remains in private hands and is not controlled by the Federal Government. HR3200 called for the formation of 53 new federal agencies. This would no longer be necessary.

4. Additional savings could be obtained from dismantling some of the bureaucracy now associated with the administration of Medicare.

5. This entire bill could be written in a 10 page document that even the busiest member of Congress would have time to read.

NOTES:

1. The reimbursement of fees to both physicians and hospitals would have to be negotiated with the input from multiple parties. This would include, but not exclude, representatives from physicians, hospitals, insurance agencies, and state and federal governments.

2. It should be noted that the present bill (HR3200) calls for Medicare + 10%. This is totally unacceptable as no hospital or medical practice could remain open with this low level of reimbursement. This would only represent approximately 33% reimbursement of the total charges. Today Medicare’s reimbursement rate of approximately 30% of the total charges would only climb to 33% if this was instituted. It takes approximately 45% of total charges for hospitals to remain profitable. An example of this is in a $100 charge for a drug, Medicare allowable is $80 when the actual cost of the drug to the practioner is $90. Without supplemental insurance the physician loses money while trying to help his patient.

3. The reimbursement rate must be sufficiently high to ensure previous obligations made by medical practices and hospitals for equipment, land, andemployees can still be met. It should also be high enough to allow for the purchase of new or replacement equipment.

4. Medicine must continue to attract the best and the brightest we have to offer. This has to be done by making the practice of medicine financially feasible. The government must subsidize the individual to help defray the cost of a medical education. It should be noted in European countries the cost of Medical School is free.

5. Finally, the issue of TORT REFORM must be addressed. I would propose that each case be reviewed by 3 independent physicians. These physicians would then recommend their opinions independently to a Board composed of physicians and lawyers. This Board would then decide (based on the three physicians recommendations):
(a) no case
(b) blatant malpractice
(c) or negotiation.

Caps on the total award would also have to be considered. This would save on insurance premiums for physicians and hospitals as well as help eliminate unnecessary tests performed due to the practice of defensive medicine.

Please Don’t Just Talk About Fixing This. . .

I complained about an IMPAX crashing problem in a prior post. You know, the one that gives this error:

So far, word back from Agfa is that the powers-that-be are “talking” about it.

I’ve already experienced the crash twice this morning.

Perhaps the “talk” will lead to a “fix” soon. I’m getting a little tired of this particular error, and we all know what happens when I get tired of something. . .

Did I happen to mention in the original post that this error makes the ENTIRE STUDY DISAPPEAR FROM THE LIST FOR SEVERAL MINUTES!??? Can we all say, “PATIENT CARE ISSUE”???

By the way, I have a feeling we are not the only site dealing with this problem. If you are currently using IMPAX 6.3.1 SU12, and you are experiencing crashes as described in the original post, please let me know by commenting below.

My patience has run out. I need this fixed by the end of the week. Thanks.