reshmakh

1 The features we charge for are usage based. For example on our hosted service the number of FHIR resources and automations (Bot executions) customers use is tiered. We also charge for compliance related features, like a Business Associate Agreement (BAA).

2 I like the paper you linked to and think it is useful. In terms of the interoperability criteria - this looks very similar to the criteria for ONC certification. Though we are not yet certified, we are working on it and you can see some of our documentation here https://www.medplum.com/docs/compliance/onc

3 Community and support is one of our goals as well and yes, we plan to hire team members explicitly focused on community

4 We do target developers, and not practice professionals. There is value in low-code in specific scenarios, but are focused on the developer because the workflows and data structures are complex enough that programming is preferable to, for example, complex configurations. We do not expect that those who develop on top of us will make their code open source.

5 In terms of consolidation - we do think that having data stored in a standard compliant way (FHIR) and available via well-documented API is useful, both for the consolidation scenario and for other interop use cases. We don't have any plans to coordinate with equity groups at present - but that's an interesting idea

Comment · 4 years ago

Thank you!

Comment · 12 years ago

HL7 integrations that are for EHRs that we already support are included at no additional charge. For example, you can export to PracticeFusion, Athena Health and DrChrono automatically as part of the base platform and more are coming. You can also customize your HL7. Some institutions require custom medical/legal documents or complex integration with multiple on-premise EHRs, VPN connections and advanced automation etc, and those are billed separately.

Comment · 12 years ago

MedXT also has a reddit integration. Read about it here: https://medium.com/@reshmakhilnani/marketing-your-boring-ent...

Comment · 12 years ago

There are a couple cases of underserved merchants based in the US where Bitcoin would compete with CC in a first world market.

The first is marijuana merchants in CO and WA. Marijuana is legal at the state level but not federally. These merchants have a hard time using the banking and credit card systems and transacting in BTC would help them do e-commerce.

The second is very low denomination transactions (like 10c). It may become profitable for compensate people at scale for doing some very small amount of work. Like giving someone who finds a typo some small amount of compensation. Credit cards are very poor for this.

As for replacing CC, that is a tall order. They are expensive and inefficient, but accepting credit cards does increase top line revenue if a merchant accepts them. If a payment method is going to get adoption it needs to grow revenue (vs. reduce cost) for a merchant if the merchant accepts it.

Comment · 12 years ago

Possible, but auth apps or other off blockchain workarounds must be coming. Existing payments systems had similar problems in the past.

Comment · 12 years ago

I also think dogecoin is fun and may have a chance at being a useful tool for reputation and measuring attention.

Comment · 12 years ago

In the short term, I think it will have a hard time gaining use as a currency. A few currency scenarios might pop up, for example countries with unstable government or corrupt governments could see people store $ in BTC instead. However, I do think it could be very valuable as an application. Like if you layered it on top of the existing payment system to provide better security/anti-fraud.