dgoncharov

> one that is very secure

Another reason we're open source - better security.

> Most health providers still require faxes, which is a huge pain in the butt.

Yes indeed - mindblowing how such critical data still relies on faxes in 2024.

> I have also heard many complaints about Epic Systems.

Yeah, Epic is not perfect, but they are ubiquitous in healthcare - and Metriport provides a nice interface to pull/push data to their EHRs!

> Most traditional provider orgs don't care about open source

Depends who you're talking to - from our experience CTOs of large provider orgs love the open source aspect (generally anyone with a tech team). Smaller orgs with no tech team don't care as much, you're right, but we also support them through a no-code provider dashboard.

> CAIR2 is specific to California. Every state registry has some technical differences in HL7 V2

Didn't know CAIR2 was only used in CA - I guess a correct statement would be every state has an offshoot of HL7v2, with CAIR2 being one of them, as you mentioned.

> In practice the C-CDAs obtained from providers sometimes include immunization section entries

Yes for sure - we get a lot of those from C-CDAs already, these registries would be just another way to make the data even more authoritative/accurate.

See the bottom of the post: "We charge per full medical record retrieval for a patient (which we call a query). This starts at $1 per query (with a monthly minimum), and scales down from there based on volume. We only charge for queries that return at least one record (and even if a query returns 1000 documents for a single patient, we still count that as a single query) - no charge is incurred for sharing data back to the networks, or making API calls to generate medical record summaries, for example."

Roughly 93% of the US population, so just north of 300 million.

> Is this intended for use by providers or consumers/patients?

This currently can only be used by providers, or healthcare IT vendors working with providers. Referring to the post: "using Metriport for patient data exchange today requires a Treatment purpose of use under HIPAA - which means that only Covered Entities, or Business Associates who work with Covered Entities, can use Metriport."

> Authorized providers can use TEFCA through a QHIN to query for treatment purpose of use, which is supported by all participants.

Yes you can query for Treatment, but you won't get meaningful coverage. QHINs do not have nearly enough adoption to be used for Treatment. Essentially the pool of providers using QHINs is insignificant, so you need to go through existing HIEs to get meaningful coverage.

The driving force behind QHINs is to open up new use-cases for accessing patient data, not necessarily to make the Treatment purpose of use better.

> How does your service differ in practice from existing networks of networks

We're the only vendor that's open source, where you can see and trust what's going on under the hood. Ask other vendors how they do record location, patient matching, or data mapping, and they'll just tell you "trust us, we're the best!".

Additionally, we're the only vendor that is confident enough in our solution to work with companies month-to-month, to show them that our product actually brings them value (and works as advertised) in production. Other vendors will lock you into $120k+ yearly contracts before even showing you production patient data. True story: a provider came to us recently after one of the vendors you mentioned locked them into a yearly contract, and only after the lengthly implementation period did they realize the product didn't work well at all - so a bunch of time/money wasted, and they need to migrate now anyways.

We have many advantages feature-wise as well, feel free to compare our dev docs!

What're you working on in specific? Can help provide clarification if you're able to describe the use case.

Thank you!!

Thank you!