Economic Efficiency of an Open-Source National Medical Lab Software in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Canada federal government has invested over $3.1 billion developing health information technology (HIT), all 10 provinces still have their own separate HIT systems, which are non-interoperable, expensive, and inconsistent. After first reviewing how these systems operate, this paper analyzes the costs and savings of integrating the common billing, lab results, and diagnostic imaging (BLD) functions of these separate systems using free and open-source software and proposes a system for this, HermesAPI. Currently, 8 provincial governments representing over 95% of Canada's population allow private companies to create their own electronic medical records (EMR) system and integrate with provincial BLD systems. This study found the cost to develop and maintain HermesAPI would be between CAD$610,000 to CAD$740,000, but would prevent CAD$120,000 per company per province in development costs for a total savings of $6.4 million. HermesAPI would lower barriers to entry for the HIT industry to increase competition, improve the quality of HIT products, and ultimately patient care. The proposed open-source approach of the HermesAPI is one option towards building a more interoperable, less expensive, and more consistent HIT system for Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".