> Just because the systems can talk to each other, it doesn't mean that I can just automatically grab whatever patient data whenever I want. There are rules and procedures you need to follow when dealing with PII.
Yes.
> Time until transfer of data is the hard part, which is independent of interoperability.
This depends if you consider dealing with the human and/or legal factors as part of interoperability or not. If the technology exists but the regulations or human factors don't allow for timely communication between systems, the systems are not interoperable. When we talk about "implementation" of a system in healthcare, we're not just talking about the setting up the technology, but changing hospital procedure, training, getting it approved by various committees, navigating legal issues, etc.
When we talk about 'disrupting' healthcare, most people don't realize that making a sexy piece of technology is the easiest part. FDA approval is effort-consuming and expensive, but plenty of health tech start ups and company initiatives have also done what Apple has done. And hence why I don't consider Apple's ability to get de novo 510k on a cool wearable 'disruptive' or a 'tipping point.' It could be influential on the consumer side of things, building a bridge between consumer health and healthcare. But how much does it touch the massive, unwieldy machine that is the healthcare system?
> There are bigger fish to be fried in this space, so if we are triaging healthcare technology I would put this low on my list of things to take care of.
No one is saying interoperability is the biggest fish. But it's a pretty damn big one. Perceived fish-size will likely vary from specialty to specialty, big urban hospital to rural clinic to private practice. What would you consider the bigger fish?
