Indy,
.... I disagree that they should work on interoperability. Why? Because it's very hard to do. We know where that leads; another misadventure.
What AC did wrong was to try to re-invent PM ....
What we don't need is the headache that comes with each "bug fix" version of one program not working properly with another, and each vendor blaming the other. We also don't need AC to try to do everything at once in the billing section. They wanted to automate everything with Gateway, but couldn't. Now they have backed off, but we don't know how far.
To be clear, I agree with folks who are saying don't re-invent a Patient Portal when Updox is already working and Phressia has one in the works. Establish a common interface and concentrate on the core product and value.
With sufficient logging and documentation, delivering interfaces (the first part of interoperability) is precise, but straightforward work. Properly done, it is can be implemented in phases, so that the interface becomes more robust over time (can do more things and pass more data).
We have a client that has some data that is incorrect in the database, and we are doing the forensic work to determine how the data got gobbered up - the logs will tell us, and the end-goal is to get things sorted and turned back on unless the vendor (or the interface) is at fault. Again, not hard for someone with DBA skills, just precise work.
AC, like many smaller Tech companies, has a tendency towards Not Invented Here (NIH), and so capabilities sourced outside have been generally un-welcome. That may be changing, and it is in everyone's interest that AC continue to change to a more receptive and insightful mindset.
