>"Meaningful Use" is tied to the regulations that also govern the glacially-developing interoperability standards, and is only achieved through certification.
"Meaningful Use" is largely agnostic to the underlying standards. It rewards (or punishes) outcomes but its aim is to increase electronic patient record usage.
>So even if the industry settled on a standard themselves, they can't be sure adopting it or the non-existent government decreed standards would meet certification even for meaningful use.
That's not really an issue. The standards are the way they are because there are no dominant players that can push through a standard unilaterally, and as I've said, the big players just don't care enough about standards outside of marketing, and they downright hate them if it means an easier time for a competitor to supplant them on-site. The interoperability mess is not due to MU in any 'meaningful' way. It was there before MU, it's there today, and it'll be there after MU.
"Meaningful Use" is largely agnostic to the underlying standards. It rewards (or punishes) outcomes but its aim is to increase electronic patient record usage.
>So even if the industry settled on a standard themselves, they can't be sure adopting it or the non-existent government decreed standards would meet certification even for meaningful use.
That's not really an issue. The standards are the way they are because there are no dominant players that can push through a standard unilaterally, and as I've said, the big players just don't care enough about standards outside of marketing, and they downright hate them if it means an easier time for a competitor to supplant them on-site. The interoperability mess is not due to MU in any 'meaningful' way. It was there before MU, it's there today, and it'll be there after MU.