I really enjoyed Neal's presentation and am looking forward to speaking with him in more depth when we meet tomorrow morning. He really is a trailblazer in the health ICT4D arena and hearing about his experiences in the field was both informative and inspiring.
Neal's presentation raised a number of questions in my mind - many that have been floating around in there for some time - and I have to admit that while I left the class excited I was also a bit frustrated. The same dilemmas regarding funding, sustainability and impact measurement seem to be incredibly evasive particularly for health-based ICT solutions and this is something I hope we can continue to discuss throughout the course. I continue to remain conflicted as to whether or not basic health care is a "right" to be provided as a social service by a government or public entity (and if so, at what level do we surpass basic care?) or whether the creation of a market opportunity and the subsequent delivery of quality, timely and appropriate care is the route to follow. In terms of technological solutions, the potential to provide scalable quality care seems evident yet the model with which to fund and sustain such technology does not appear to exist. In particular, in relation to Neal's work with EMRs (and based on my previous experience with EMR/EHR/PHR initiatives and development), I would state that the implementation of such technological solutions may be better positioned as a business opportunity in oder to improve the delivery of health and may not fall within the purview of "basic health provision." Therefore, would such solutions benefit from a market-based strategy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment