Active Forum Topics | Getting Started | Interviews | EMR Forum | Medical | Billings | Press & News | Voice Recognition | The Water Cooler
As many on this forum have already sorted out, Practice Fusion is not "backed" by Google. Rather they are simply using Google Ads to fund their EHR. While that is an interesting model, they have been riding a wave of popularity that comes when people start talking about them as "Googles EHR". Further from a technology standpoint, this technology is trivial. With MirrorMed or any of the other web-baed FOSS EHRs it would be a simple matter to replicate this business model. I have written a Practice Fusion expose over at Free Software Magazine, including the technical details. I have seen Jonathan Seb is around the forums, and would like to discuss how Practice Fusion might clean up its act. If you are interested, feel free to contact me through these forums, my website below or to debate here publically.
Regards,
Fred Trotter
This implies that there is no explicit partnership and I very much doubt that this is true. It is well known that Google can cut adsense revenue unilaterally .. on the suspicion of click fraud, and more often than not, you do not get your account restored. Knowing this, then it would be foolhardy in the extreme to rely on adsense without some other type of contractural agreement in place with Google.
Graham http://www.synapse-ehr.com/ Synapse - the EMR for the superior physician
Fred, Firstly, for the record I have already commented to your posting about PF on freesoftwaremagazine.com, but it was not posted. (I did receive a confirmation submission) We welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair. Regarding the recent press - Andis was one of the original reporters that wrote about our relationship with Google. He wrote two stories - the first was 'PF pairs with Google to Offer Free EMR'. In this interview we never stated that our relationship with Google was exclusive (or as you mention that we are 'backed' by Google) and it is our understanding that Andis spoke with our PR contact at Google for this article, as all the other journalists did. Why Andis was compelled to write the second story about the PF / Google relationship not being exclusive - only he knows. I have included the entire story below and as you will see we never started that our partnership was exclusive. In addition, Andis chose the title to the story, and as you know, companies being interviewed have no approval rights on stories that are going to press. Regarding your comments about the technology. PF does not have a standard Adsense relationship with Google where code is simply inserted in our site, as you pointed out in your commentary. We worked closely with Google Adsense team to develop a custom API to send keywords to Adsense and retuen relative content. At no time is Google on our site and at no time is Google exposed to any type of PHI. We control every word that is sent to them. In addition, since this was a new model, we worked closely with healthcare attorneys, Davis Wright Tremaine, to validate that the solution was completely HIPAA compliant and that privacy was handled appropriately. If there are further questions from the community, or if EMRUpdate is interested in a formal interview, we are more than happy to oblige. I can be reached via direct message on this board.
Jonathan SebMarketing Director, PF
Jonathan Seb: We have welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair.
We have welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair.
Jonathan,
You will never be censored here at EMR Update, and thank you very much for signing in and filling us in!
I hope to speak with you soon regarding our Valued Sponsor ad service, and perhaps, to discuss a future interview with you or your CEO to further educate our members.
Welcome to EMR Update! You have grabbed our attention in a major way, and I personally appreciate the way you "stepped up to the plate" to speak up for yourself!
Robert Gleeman, Medical Journalist for EMR Update.com Email: robert@emrupdate.com Tel: 1-650-968-6359 Skype and ooVoo user name: robertgleeman EMR progress is a matter of fact. EMR Update supports your right to know.
Jonathan Seb: Fred, Firstly, for the record I have already commented to your posting about Practice Fusion on freesoftwaremagazine.com, but it was not posted. (I did receive a confirmation submission) We welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair.
Fred, Firstly, for the record I have already commented to your posting about Practice Fusion on freesoftwaremagazine.com, but it was not posted. (I did receive a confirmation submission) We welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair.
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to mis-configured SPAM blocking. :) No one at Free Software Magazine is censoring you, try creating an account there and re-posting. If it still does not work, let me know and I will post that your rebuttal is here.
Regarding the recent press - Andis was one of the original reporters that wrote about our relationship with Google. He wrote two stories - the first was 'Practice Fusion pairs with Google to Offer Free EMR'. In this interview we never stated that our relationship with Google was exclusive (or as you mention that we are 'backed' by Google) and it is our understanding that Andis spoke with our PR contact at Google for this article, as all the other journalists did. Why Andis was compelled to write the second story about the Practice Fusion / Google relationship not being exclusive - only he knows.
It was probably because everyone assumed that the relationship was exclusive, making the fact that it is not newsworthy.
I have included the entire story below and as you will see we never started that our partnership was exclusive. In addition, Andis chose the title to the story, and as you know, companies being interviewed have no approval rights on stories that are going to press.
That's why its snake oil. It is not possible to tell the difference between what you said and what a company might say who DID have an exclusive relationship with Google. You made a big press splash because most journalist do not have the technical capacity to really evaluate your claims.
Regarding your comments about the technology. Practice Fusion does not have a standard Adsense relationship with Google where code is simply inserted in our site, as you pointed out in your commentary. We worked closely with Google Adsense team to develop a custom API to send keywords to Adsense and retuen relative content.
Who wrote this "API"? If google wrote it for you, then that is interesting. It might have features that my alternative system did not. If you wrote it then how exactly did Google help you? I did not need Googles help to design my system. How is your API better or different than what I described in my article? API could mean "really cool thing that does lots of things" or it could be just a structural improvement on what I was suggesting. The whole problem with Practice Fusion is that it is difficult to tell how and if you are special, right now it appears that you are not that special at all, which is fine, except that you continue to let everyone believe that you are very special.
At no time is Google on our site
What does that mean? Does that mean that Google does not scan your servers?
and at no time is Google exposed to any type of PHI. We control every word that is sent to them.
Not so impressive given that 1. its illegal for you not to and 2. I just detailed how trivial this is to accomplish. This makes me lean toward "not so special".
In addition, since this was a new model, we worked closely with healthcare attorneys, Davis Wright Tremaine, to validate that the solution was completely HIPAA compliant and that privacy was handled appropriately.
I have never understood this kind of thing. Why did you need a lawyer to tell you what you already knew to be true? Either your system broadcasts PHI to Google and is therefore illegal, or it does not and it therefore not illegal. I would be much more interested to hear, "why did extensive testing with a network sniffer to verify that no PHI was broadcast". Still I know there are many who get warm fuzzies knowing that a lawyer has blessed an technology.
If there are further questions from the community, or if EMRUpdate is interested in a formal interview, we are more than happy to oblige. I can be reached at jonathan AT practicefusion.com
What I would like to accomplish is this. How is your company special? You are using Internet ads to fund your EHR, and that's different. But almost everything else does not pass the smell test. If you will clarify, both here and in a press release exactly what the truth really is, then I will publish an equal length article to compliment that move. A Sneaky company would refuse and continue to get mileage out of a "press misunderstanding". An honest company would correct the misunderstanding and then detail why they are still important.
I do not do private email for my activism now, got burned once...
Last question, are you using a FOSS ehr? if no, then why not? Why are you reinventing the wheel given that your funding model works fine with GPL software?
Thanks,
Snake oil really gets an ill deserved bad name. It is high in beneficial N3 fatty acids, and may well have helpful effects for health.
Fred, you need to ease up on the Snake Oil...
ftrotter: It was probably because everyone assumed that the relationship was exclusive, making the fact that it is not newsworthy.
Never attribute to corporate exaggeration what can be attributed to journalistic artistic license to write a cool story . :)
ftrotter: That's why its snake oil. It is not possible to tell the difference between what you said and what a company might say who DID have an exclusive relationship with Google.
That's why its snake oil. It is not possible to tell the difference between what you said and what a company might say who DID have an exclusive relationship with Google.
ftrotter: Who wrote this "API"? If google wrote it for you, then that is interesting. It might have features that my alternative system did not. If you wrote it then how exactly did Google help you? I did not need Googles help to design my system.
Who wrote this "API"? If google wrote it for you, then that is interesting. It might have features that my alternative system did not. If you wrote it then how exactly did Google help you? I did not need Googles help to design my system.
Fred, I have seen your code - you definitely need help to design your system... computer science was not your major right...
ftrotter: I have never understood this kind of thing. Why did you need a lawyer to tell you what you already knew to be true?
I have never understood this kind of thing. Why did you need a lawyer to tell you what you already knew to be true?
Because Fred, just because you think something is true, doesnt make it so, just because you 'know' doesnt mean the legal system will agree, thats why we have lawyers...
Mitch - screenshots are available on the main site and here. It's late so I will tackle the questions over the next few days.
-Jon
ftrotter: Jonathan Seb:Fred, Firstly, for the record I have already commented to your posting about PF on freesoftwaremagazine.com, but it was not posted. (I did receive a confirmation submission) We welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to mis-configured SPAM blocking. :) No one at Free Software Magazine is censoring you, try creating an account there and re-posting. If it still does not work, let me know and I will post that your rebuttal is here.My apologies. - JS Regarding the recent press - Andis was one of the original reporters that wrote about our relationship with Google. He wrote two stories - the first was 'PF pairs with Google to Offer Free EMR'. In this interview we never stated that our relationship with Google was exclusive (or as you mention that we are 'backed' by Google) and it is our understanding that Andis spoke with our PR contact at Google for this article, as all the other journalists did. Why Andis was compelled to write the second story about the PF / Google relationship not being exclusive - only he knows.It was probably because everyone assumed that the relationship was exclusive, making the fact that it is not newsworthy. I am assuming that you did research and read the other articles that were written about us before making your comments. In case you didn't, here are two that we actually written before (and posted the same day) the article you mentioned: http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/story.cms?id=6223 http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=6678. As I am sure you have already read - they state the relationship is not exclusive. -JSI have included the entire story below and as you will see we never started that our partnership was exclusive.In addition, Andis chose the title to the story, and as you know, companies being interviewed have no approval rights on stories that are going to press. That's why its snake oil. It is not possible to tell the difference between what you said and what a company might say who DID have an exclusive relationship with Google. You made a big press splash because most journalist do not have the technical capacity to really evaluate your claims.My previous comment should address this. -JS Regarding your comments about the technology, PF does not have a standard Adsense relationship with Google where code is simply inserted in our site, as you pointed out in your commentary. We worked closely with Google Adsense team to develop a custom API to send keywords to Adsense and return relative content. Who wrote this "API"? If google wrote it for you, then that is interesting. It might have features that my alternative system did not. If you wrote it then how exactly did Google help you? I did not need Googles help to design my system. How is your API better or different than what I described in my article? API could mean "really cool thing that does lots of things" or it could be just a structural improvement on what I was suggesting. The whole problem with PF is that it is difficult to tell how and if you are special, right now it appears that you are not that special at all, which is fine, except that you continue to let everyone believe that you are very special.Our API integrates directly with Google's. This allows us to separate our PHI from Google because we control what is sent and received to and from Google. We also have more capability than a typical Adsense account to tune the type of content that is being delivered.At no time is Google on our site What does that mean? Does that mean that Google does not scan your servers?Exactly - They are never on our servers or site. (We actually do not have a site - we have a flash based application). and at no time is Google exposed to any type of PHI. We control every word that is sent to them. Not so impressive given that 1. its illegal for you not to and 2. I just detailed how trivial this is to accomplish. This makes me lean toward "not so special".In addition, since this was a new model, we worked closely with healthcare attorneys, Davis Wright Tremaine, to validate that the solution was completely HIPAA compliant and that privacy was handled appropriately. I have never understood this kind of thing. Why did you need a lawyer to tell you what you already knew to be true? Either your system broadcasts PHI to Google and is therefore illegal, or it does not and it therefore not illegal. I would be much more interested to hear, "why did extensive testing with a network sniffer to verify that no PHI was broadcast". Still I know there are many who get warm fuzzies knowing that a lawyer has blessed an technology. This is much more complex than you have stated. In addition to the PHI issues, marketing to physicians is a HIPAA issue that needed to be addressed legally along with user consent. Since this has never been done before and our model is based on it, there was a significant amount of research put into it. If there are further questions from the community, or if EMRUpdate is interested in a formal interview, we are more than happy to oblige. I can be reached via direct message through EMR update.What I would like to accomplish is this. How is your company special? You are using Internet ads to fund your EHR, and that's different. But almost everything else does not pass the smell test. If you will clarify, both here and in a press release exactly what the truth really is, then I will publish an equal length article to compliment that move. A Sneaky company would refuse and continue to get mileage out of a "press misunderstanding". An honest company would correct the misunderstanding and then detail why they are still important.I do not do private email for my activism now, got burned once...Last question, are you using a FOSS ehr? if no, then why not? Why are you reinventing the wheel given that your funding model works fine with GPL software?Thanks,Fred Trotter
Jonathan Seb:Fred, Firstly, for the record I have already commented to your posting about PF on freesoftwaremagazine.com, but it was not posted. (I did receive a confirmation submission) We welcome discussion about our business and out model, but being censored is simply unfair.
Regarding the recent press - Andis was one of the original reporters that wrote about our relationship with Google. He wrote two stories - the first was 'PF pairs with Google to Offer Free EMR'. In this interview we never stated that our relationship with Google was exclusive (or as you mention that we are 'backed' by Google) and it is our understanding that Andis spoke with our PR contact at Google for this article, as all the other journalists did. Why Andis was compelled to write the second story about the PF / Google relationship not being exclusive - only he knows.
I have included the entire story below and as you will see we never started that our partnership was exclusive.In addition, Andis chose the title to the story, and as you know, companies being interviewed have no approval rights on stories that are going to press.
Regarding your comments about the technology, PF does not have a standard Adsense relationship with Google where code is simply inserted in our site, as you pointed out in your commentary. We worked closely with Google Adsense team to develop a custom API to send keywords to Adsense and return relative content.
If there are further questions from the community, or if EMRUpdate is interested in a formal interview, we are more than happy to oblige. I can be reached via direct message through EMR update.
You might want to fix the typos before the public sees them.
osproponent: Never attribute to corporate exaggeration what can be attributed to journalistic artistic license to write a cool story . :)
That does seem to be the case Jonathan is making.
osproponent: Who cares what *you* can or cannot tell, true corporate insight is rare.
Hmm... I care what I can and cannot tell.
osproponent: Fred, I have seen your code - you definitely need help to design your system... computer science was not your major right...
Some of my code is terrible, especially the early parts. Still every X12 billing engine available under the GPL is based on my "bad" code. Perhaps we should do a comparision between the EHR that you are pubicly developing and the one that I am working on so that I can be shown how to do things "right". You do have an EHR that you are publicaly developing right? I assume that you would not insult my public contributions and me without having done so in the context of your own public contributions, I just do not have the URL for the projects with your code inside.
osproponent: Because Fred, just because you think something is true, doesnt make it so, just because you 'know' doesnt mean the legal system will agree, thats why we have lawyers...
There is either PHI going over the network, or not. This is a fact that I am capable of determining. There does not need to be a lawyer to figure this out. Interestingly Jonathan concedes this and informs us that this was not the issue he hired the lawyer for.
I am confused, do you have a problem with my arguments, me personally or some combination of the two? The personal comments in your post indicate that perhaps I should be ignoring you?
-FT
ftrotter:Some of my code is terrible, especially the early parts. Still every X12 billing engine available under the GPL is based on my "bad" code. Perhaps we should do a comparision between the EHR that you are pubicly developing and the one that I am working on so that I can be shown how to do things "right". You do have an EHR that you are publicaly developing right? I assume that you would not insult my public contributions and me without having done so in the context of your own public contributions, I just do not have the URL for the projects with your code inside.
The only reason I took a pot shot at your code was your statement that you did not need Google to design your system. Google has a ton of talented programmers who effectively put AJAX on the map (pun intended). To blow that off and say you dont need them to setup your own HIPAA not so compliant system deserves a pot shot. Fair point about not being to swing back at my code. If it makes you feel better I wrote some truly aweful visual basic code cira '92.
ftrotter:I am confused, do you have a problem with my arguments, me personally or some combination of the two? The personal comments in your post indicate that perhaps I should be ignoring you?
I dont know you personally, I am sure you are a very nice person and do good work.
Where this stems from is your stance at being an advocate for healthcare open source while taking big swings at the competitors - MedSphere and now Practice Fusion. Not very Linus like. Call me old fashioned but subject and statements such as 'Practice Fusion Exposed. I have seen Jonathan Seb is around the forums, and would like to discuss how Practice Fusion might clean up its act.' - I think is outrageously rude. Maybe it is my British side but I think if you can dish it out you can expect to get it back.
Personally I think you are conflicted as you work for a company which has their own Open Source product and so when competition comes along you are forced bash it with flashy headlines on the Linux Med Site. This is despite not knowing the technical merits of the corporate entities.
I happen to believe in Open Source and Open Source in Healthcare, I think the physicians of this world are just dying to take control of their own software, mash and shape it to their needs - not being subservient to vendors, even open source vendors (unless they want to). A product that just works, and works without an army of techies to support it. I dont want Open Source in Healthcare to get a bad name.
And yes, you should absolutely ignore me, as this post and all the others will soon be forgotten in the grand scheme of things.