> Dear List members
>
> I along with many other ACT users, received a letter recently from the
> company regarding upgrade to our existing LIS system to meet the needs of
> the new EDIFACT/X400 pathology message.
> The concept of charging per transaction is mentioned in this letter. At a
> recent ACT user group meeting, one explanation for this was that as trusts
> merge, and single LIS systems potentially supply services to combined
> trusts, the revenue generated would be substantially reduced.
Transactional
> charging would maintain revenue at current levels. I was interested to
read
> the article from this weeks computer weekly (reproduced below in full)
which
> rings a few alarm bells. I think there are some issues here that need
> debating for example what constitutes a transaction?. Also if
transactional
> charging applies to pathology messages sent to GPs what about messages
sent
> from analysers, order entries made and just about anything else you care
to
> do with an LIS system?.
> Anyone have any views on this.
>
> John O'Connor
> (Interested ACT customer)
>
> > ComputerWeekly.com - News
> > ID:  PIN:    Free email!
> > Issue date: 19 October 2000
> > Stiffing suspicion at NHSnet
> > Pathology group switches to per-message fee. Mike Simons reports
> > Health service IT managers fear they are being stiffed by a major
supplier
> seeking to cash in on the planned rapid growth of NHSnet, the health
> service's private network.
> > CDS Group, which has a 60% share of the pathology IT market, has written
> to its customers saying it wants to change its licensing from an annual
fee
> to one based on the number of messages sent across NHSnet.
> > Each year NHS labs send 35 million pathology reports to GPs and getting
> these reports sent electronically, rather than on paper, is seen as an
> important step in the development of the NHSnet.
> > The NHS Information Authority (NHSIA), in consultation with health
service
> professionals and systems suppliers, has defined a new standard format for
> pathology messaging which includes security and encryption.
> > However, CDS said it would have to change its licensing model to meet
> these needs. "The production of the relevant software is only commercially
> viable if we secure your commitment to the development and installation
> programme in the form of a purchase order," it said in a letter to
> customers.
> > A number of NHS IT professionals contacted Computer Weekly over the
issue.
> One IT director, who asked not to be named, believed CDS was taking
> advantage of its position in the market. His trust had to buy the software
> and agree to the new pricing structure because it was too difficult to
> switch suppliers. "It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to buy a new
> system and it can take two years to procure," he said.
> > Although the proposed cost per transaction is about 0.04p per unit, the
> bill could top L1m if the NHSIA messaging forecasts are right.
> > An NHSIA spokesman said it intended to introduce electronic messaging
next
> January. "People do have to buy an upgrade to comply with government
> standards," he said. "How and what they have to pay is the issue."
> > The proposed licensing change has sparked concern with the authority,
> which immediately requested negotiations with CDS. "We have asked the
> company to come up with variations on its pricing proposals," the
spokesman
> said. "We are satisfied the negotiations are proceeding in good faith."
> > Steve Garrington, managing director of ACT Medisys which owns CDS, said
> significant software development was required and highlighted the
> fragmentary nature of NHS IT. "This is not a get-rich scheme," he said.
"The
> timetable for the project is being driven by the messaging team [of the
> NHSIA], but there is no customer commitment [from the trusts] to it yet."
> > CDS plans to address user group meetings next month to explain the
upgrade
> and its pricing policy.
> > Geoff Petherick, of the user group UKCMG, said the stiffing question
would
> hinge on whether CDS was taking a risk with the new development. If there
> was little risk or software development, users should consider going to
the
> Office of Fair Trading, he said. This had "saved half a dozen firms L1m
> each".
> >
>
> >
> >
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%