The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces 'Free' EMR
by Fred Trotter on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @ 01:41 PM
|
Google recently announced that Practice Fusion is simply an adsense customer, and that Google does not endorse them over any other EMR. Any EMR vendor can do this with Google ads.
-FT
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces 'Free' EMR
by Unable2GetFree on Sunday December 16, 2007 @ 06:30 AM
|
Please update this article to remove the word "free" where you can. I tried to sign up for the "free" service. It is impossible to sign up for the "free" service without providing a credit card which is charged after 30 days for "support". Even explaining that I did not need support did not give me a "free" option. Practice Fusion is playing bait and switch.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly 'Free' EMR
by Competitors shouldn't post on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @ 08:28 AM
|
Looks like there are some jealous competitors here - the product is free - it's obvious that you can register for it on their site. Ignacio, you should validate and update your comments.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly 'Free' EMR
by Ignacio Valdes, MD on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @ 03:11 PM
|
|
>> "Looks like there are some jealous competitors here - the product is free - it's obvious that you can register for it on their site. Ignacio, you should validate and update your comments."
Please address the posters comments that the registration really isn't free. Also, is the software distributed as Free/Open Source license as approved by fsf.org or not?
-- IV
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly Not 'Free'
by Competitors shouldn't post on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @ 05:49 PM
|
It's pretty obvious you can sign-up here for free: https://secure.practicefusion.com/pf/practicemanagementsignup.aspx
They are not opensource - not even sure why LinuxMedNews is writing about them. Regardless, you should change the title above a it is the right thing to do, not to mention that it is libelous.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly Not 'Free'
by Ignacio Valdes, MD on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @ 06:46 PM
|
Sorry but Linux Medical News is a historic document and I don't go back in and alter things for no good reason. Note the date on the original article. Newspapers do not go and burn old copies of articles when things change and neither do I. If they have changed then good for them but I note that there is a confusing support charge message when you try to sign up: 'Monthly Support License : $0 monthly ($100 per practitioner/month)' whatever that means. It is also important to note that they are not free in the sense of freedom to run, copy, study, distribute, fix and extend the software. These are important freedoms for medical software and the buyer should know that those freedoms are not included. They also may not be free in the financial or having to look at advertising sense either. Why put up with that when you have ClearHealth/MirrorMed or all the VistA software around?
-- IV
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly Not 'Free' EMR
by Competitors shouldn't post on Friday June 27, 2008 @ 01:56 AM
|
Don't you think its a little hippocritical to say that you do not change documents, when you have already changed it to 'Not Free'?
As to the confusing part you refer to, the ad-free version is FREE!! If you click on the non-ad verison you pay - it's pretty simple. The $0 monthly ($100 per practitioner/month) is when you select ad-free version. If you filled out the form, you would see this.
They are not opensource - did you simply write about them to trach talk them because they do not match your ideals?
Your article is false and poor journalism.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly Not 'Free' EMR
by Ignacio Valdes, MD, MS on Friday June 27, 2008 @ 04:17 AM
|
|
Explain to me how 'I don't go back in and alter things for no good reason' becomes '...you do not change documents...'
I'm not out to 'trach talk' anyone. It would be irresponsible of me to not discuss important distinctions as to what the word free means in the context of health IT. In my opinion Practice Fusion is not free in any sense. They are free to go on with their business model but it isn't one that I would agree to in my practice.
You have so far added no new data to the contrary so I do not accept the premise that it is false or poor journalism.
-- IV
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly 'Free' EMR
by Competitors shouldn't post on Friday June 27, 2008 @ 05:43 PM
|
Regarding document comment:
Quoting Ignacio H. Valdes, MD, MS (that's you), "Sorry but Linux Medical News is a historic document and I don't go back in and alter things for no good reason."
But you have changed the title to: "One reader (below) says that this is a 'bait and switch'.",
So, not only did you change the document, you changed it to something false
It doesn't matter what you would run in your practice - your article started off a mention about a free alternative, not one about open source. The technology is either free or not - Since it is, the title to your piece is now false, which any reasonable person would consider poor journalism.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Practice Fusion Announces Possibly 'Free' EMR
by Ignacio Valdes, MD, MS on Saturday June 28, 2008 @ 02:10 PM
|
|
Hmm, repeating the same argument only this time using bold type is going to sway me and everyone else? Sounds like I'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me so I don't see a point in continuing this discussion.
-- IV
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The following
comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Posted by Ignacio H. Valdes, MD, MS on Friday March 16, 2007 @ 09:36 PM
