November 26, 2007
OneCommunity lands $11.2m FCC Grant to Extend Community Network Coverage for Health Care Services
This just in from OneCommunity and the Northeast Ohio Regional Health Information Organization. The FCC funded more than $400m of infrastructure projects to connect urban health care research and clinical care providers to their rural community partners. OneCommunity will be working with other community-based networking groups to extend access for healthcare and other community priorities
NORTHEAST OHIO AWARDED $11 MILLION TO EXTEND BROADBAND TO RURAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
Rural Hospitals to Benefit from Enhanced Collaboration and Services
Cleveland, Ohio – The Federal Communications Commission announced Monday that the Northeast Ohio Regional Health Organization (NEO RHIO) and OneCommunity are the recipients of an $11.2 million capital grant that will fund 70 percent of the total $16.1 million development of a regional broadband health care network over a three year period. The remaining 30 percent needed for the project will be raised through other sources. Funds will be used to extend OneCommunity’s dedicated HealthNet high-speed broadband network to connect 19 rural hospitals and numerous clinics spanning 22 counties to over 30 existing hospitals connected to the OneCommunity network. HealthNet will enable NEO RHIO and its collaborative medical providers to deliver telemedicine applications, records access, medical imaging and remote diagnostic services.
The FCC grant is part of the national Rural Healthcare Pilot Program (RHCPP), a $417 million campaign connecting over 6,000 public and non-profit healthcare providers in rural, urban and suburban communities to a high-speed broadband network. There is a great need for broadband in the rural healthcare community, where isolated clinics will now have the opportunity to save lives by using advanced communications technology to tap into the expertise of modern urban medical centers. The effort supports the President’s goal of a national system to manage electronic patient health records and will connect to the National LamdaRail and Internet2. The FCC announcement comes on the heels of last week’s American Health Information Community conference in Chicago where FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed plans to develop the RHCPP.
“This is an important economic development for our region’s healthcare industry,” says Mark Ansboury, acting chief technology officer for NEO RHIO and chief technology officer of OneCommunity. “We now have the opportunity, for the first time, to connect rural medical facilities to a network of nationally recognized health care providers. In the end, the grant is not only revolutionizing the way health care is delivered in rural areas, but is also helping the people that need it most – the patients.”
“We offer our congratulations to Ohio’s two other grant recipients, Holzer Consolidated Health Systems and the Southern Ohio Healthcare Network,” says Scot Rourke, chief executive officer of OneCommunity. “This is a nice win for the entire state. Together, our efforts will connect hundreds of medical facilities in Ohio and enhance our healthcare services and related research capabilities.”
“This award was made possible by many strong collaborators including Northeast Ohio Technology Coalition (NorTech), the Greater Cleveland Partnership, the Ohio Congressional delegation, the Governor’s office, and all the many state government officials who supported this effort,” continued Rourke.
The connected 22 counties will include: Ashland, Ashtabula, Carroll, Columbiana, Coshocton, Cuyahoga, Erie, Geauga, Holmes, Huron, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Sandusky, Seneca, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas and Wayne.
November 21, 2007
Postscript on WSJ Story
Wall Street Journal BizTech writer Ben Worthen penned a story with a colleague that made print yesterday regarding the impact of M&A (consolidation) in the enterprise software space. As Ben usually attempts to do in his blog, his focus was on the lived and real impact as told by real IT folks in real organizations. While the Street measures value in a rather predictable set of criteria... those of us living the 'dream' of bigger and better have other experiences that are part of the story (not always told).
As I shared with Ben, I have been a customer of Oracle for nearly 15 years. In our environment here at Case Western Reserve University we have made some strategic decisions that have drawn us more tightly into the Oracle world. In other cases, Oracle has made some business decisions that have brought us closer to them ;-). Their acquisition of the Steltor calendaring product to be the foundation of the Oracle Collaboration Suite and the purchase of the tool set managed by Rich Pickett, then at Princeton, which morphed into Oracle Portal are two examples, along with the better known PeopleSoft acquisition.
Several dozen colleagues and friends have emailed me regarding the WSJ story. Of course, it turns out that our experience is not unique nor are we 'so' special here at Case Western Reserve University. As I've shared with a number of correspondents I know very well how complicated the tools are and I have a significant appreciation for what it takes to bake application integration. Why we as enterprise customers settle for half-baked and poor software code is the topic of another blog entry. The reality is that we've been conditioned by industry and over the past decade have largely resigned ourselves to this being the general state of affairs.
With pressure from the Street to deliver quarter over quarter results, those in the sales organizations and business units within corporations like Oracle face a difficult set of challenges to do right by their customers and their shareholders. As the stack of services offered by these integration giants grows larger and more complex, execution, agility, and rock solid customer engineering support seems to decline proportionately. While predictable, those of us in enterprise organizations like Universities face rising expectations from our own customers that are difficult, if not impossible to meet. As I shared with Ben from the WSJ... the result is that moving forward, organizations like Case Western Reserve will be looking to the 'promise' of software as a service as the general blueprint for reducing the exposure and vulnerability that we face as M&A activities continue in the market during a period of rising end- user expectations, growing complexity in corporate strategic acquisition efforts, and the insatiable appetite of many giants to absorb (innovative and promising)'pieces' of solutions as they attempt to bake them into a single offering. While Oracle has my business today... we have offered those in Oracle (and other of our vendors) who are interested in listening that the long overdue promise of Oracle-on-Demand (and other SaaS architectures) is going to be critical to organizations like ours if we are going to focus on bringing value to our customers here at the University. There are few alternatives that present themselves given the realities of our human, technical, and fiscal resources.
A number of colleagues who have emailed me asked whether the WSJ got my comments right... Some expressed skepticism that either the Journal mis-represented my views or that I was simply hopelessly naive.
Ben did a fact check (as he has always done in the past) and this, for the record, is the verbatim response I shared with him.
We use Oracle Peoplesoft for HR, Finance, and [soon] Student services. We use Oracle Collaboration Suite for calendaring and other collaboration tools. We use Oracle Portal to enable renewing library books, connecting to the Blackboard course management system, checking on online payments, ordering books for courses and other services. Oracle has consistently told us (read -- sales) that they are making all three software suites transparent, fully integrated, and customer friendly. [fusion is not the silver bullet... never has been]. The result is that there are, in reality, more than 5 years after the first set of promises, three separate and largely independent products. [From our perspective this]has been made only more of hassle and nuisance with the acquisition of PeopleSoft which also stands alone with its own portal-like technology. We have realized no savings associated with software or software maintenance and basically must continue to invest in very expensive [and scarce] talent, along with hardware, and other related costs which has actually cost us at least $100K in extra costs because the promised transparent, integrated solution has not materialized and has, in reality, wasted thousands of hours of [internal] developer time. The cost of maintaining each of these three systems ranges from $250K to $500K over five years just for the software maintenance, not to mention all the associated acquisition and maintenance costs for hardware, OS, and technical staff.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Case Western Reserve University
November 21, 2007