On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:43:49 -0000, Jon Rogers wrote:
>Ahmad asked "why have the RFA process?" - Well at present it is one of the only ways to encourage GP systems to meet requirements of the NHS with items that are in >Ewan's words:
>1) fundamental to the successful implementation of the strategy
>2) safety critical (this include security and confidentiality)
>3) Necessary to support data sharing and EDI
I am a libertarian.
1. Shouldn't the market decide that?
2. Shouldn't GP systems meet the needs of GPs, not "requirements of the
NHS"?
Otherwise, the RFA system amounts to a set of restrictive practices.
Something that should worry many people who understand what restrictive
practices are.
Sorry, Jon (and Ewan), you are both men of great talent. So far, you
are giving the 'party line'. I do understand the constraints.
However, for the RFA process to work, don't you think you'll need to
convince GPs that RFAs are there for *their* benefit?
The way I see it, that case has not been made yet. The argument goes
all the way back to RFA 1 that everybody assumes that it was a Good
Thing. Changing the drivers merely makes a better model of the Traban.
Ahmad
-------------------------------------------
Dr Ahmad Risk MB BCh
The Good Doctor Ltd
http://mednetics.org
Tel: +44 1273 724866
Fax:+44 1273 774614
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|