OEMR funding and Public Private Partnerships

drbowen wrote on Sunday, January 09, 2011:

Successful funding of a not-for-profit is always difficult.  This process is called “resource development” and successful not-for-profits always have a designated resource developer whether this is a volunteer or a professional employee.  Larger not-for-profits devote significant resources to this process and always have a highly compensated director of resource development and may have an entire staff of fund raisers and grant writers…  Without funding the not-for-profit cannot survive and cannot complete its mission.

Fund Raising

Basic expenses including rent, utilities and employee payroll are on-going expenses and are typically shown as line items in a Profit and Loss P&L statement.  Of course in a not-for-profit the “Profit” is referred to as revenue in the same fashion that an account would.  Many nonprofits use accrual based  accounting because the funding is received well before expenses are incurred.  Grants are intended for single one time only purchases such as purchasing a large piece of equipment, a building or to start a completely new branch of nonprofit work.  Grants are always restricted and are rarely allowed to be used for ongoing monthly expenses and payroll.  These ongoing expenses have to be covered through private donations and nonprofits are always doing fund raising campaigns to cover these expenses.  That’s why every Christmas the US based Salvation Army always has volunteers out ringing their bells and collecting change in front of grocery stores.  This is how the Salvation Army pays the professional staff that run the organization. 

As an organization we have trying to develop a way of receiving fund raising methods.  I have recently received requests to help with fund raising from a small group of individuals who i hope to form into a team of fund raisers.  If you are interested in volunteering for this purpose please contact Dru White ( druwhite at gmail dot com ).  Fortunately the ongoing expenses of the organization have been relatively small (internet access) and have been covered privately by a benefactor.   The web server was paid for through a small grant through the generosity of Hickory Springs Corporation in Hickory, North Carolina ( http://www.hickorysprings.com ).  Currently all private donations are being saved to help pay for ONC Certification for OpenEMR.  I would also like to see a professional employee begin helping with this process though I don’t think we can cover a salary at this point.

During poor economic times private donations are much harder to obtain because they are dependent on discretionary income.  Many nonprofits fail during economic recessions.

Grant Writing

Grant writing is notoriously difficult.  To be successful you have to have a skillful writer who has a certain “gift-of-gab” that can lay on the correct adjectives and buzz words that strike the correct chords in the funders mind.  Adding to the difficulty grants are incredible competitive.  Literally thousands of nonprofits are pelting the the funding organizations staff with requests for money.  Many of these are inappropriate requests for funds to pay ongoing operational expense.  The initial funding request is usually made in a small text box online or in a 1-2 page letter.  You have to have the skill to communicate to the funding organization that you are an appropriate organization to help the funder accomplish their mission.  The funding organization then usually requests a more formal grant application.   The larger the amount of the grant and the larger the funding organization the more restrictions that are placed on the requested funds.  Large grants from large organizations are only granted usually to create a new project that no one else has done before.  To do this we have to show how we are unique and creating something new that has never been done before.  Finally, grants are inherently not sure things.  No matter how good your concept, no matter how well your objective lines up with the objective of the funder, you can still get turned for very seemingly capricious problems.  Not having the appropriate margins on the grant itself.  Not being able to get the idea across in a text box that only allows 5,000 characters (including spaces). Simply not having enough experience with large grants.  Being successful at the grant business is kind of like the credit game here in the United States.  To get great credit you have to build up a history of responsible spending and payments.  The best credit scores come from having very high cash to borrowing ratios.  You have to start small with a very small charge card at the local department store and work your way up.  Grant writing works the same way.  You have to start small and slowly work your way to show a history of responsible spending.   The organization is required to generate timely reports to prove that it is spending the grant money responsibly.   Booking for each grant has to be kept separate with might be called a spend down list.  Each dollar has to accounted for separately.

The Benefactor

Lucky is the non-profit that has a wealthy benefactor that wants to help the nonprofit establish its goals.  Mana starts dropping from heaven.  These relationships have their own problems and costs.  The benefactor could get sick and die, run out of money, or be very capricious in their personality.  Most universities raise a substantial amount of money in this fashion.  The president of the university spends substantial amount of time have lunch with well-to-do alumni.  All the time building a relationship of trust.  After years of hearing whatever the alumnus is complaining about, the president finally asks for money.  Not a little bit of money but many millions of dollars.  The president does this with dozens of alumni at the same time.  The next thing you know up goes a new business school for the university.

The Public-Private-Partnership

When you talk to the leaders of successful nonprofits all three of these traditional money raising methods are difficult and somewhat problematic.  None of them are easy and they are all prone to sporadic, unpredictable failure.   Like any other business, sudden failure of the cash flow stream usually sinks the nonprofit.   This has led to the concept of the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP).  I first learned of the concept of the PPP from my friend Forrest Toms around 2005.  Forrest has been involved in running and managing nonprofits, consulting with nonprofit hospitals, both local and international governmental organizations.  The idea is that the nonprofit should seek out one or more successful businesses that have a common interest or need.   The non-profit uses donations and grant money to purchase services from the business.  The business in return performs a service for the nonprofit usually at a reduced or discounted rate.  The business also makes tax exempt cash donations to the nonprofit which are used to pay for operational expenses.  This helps both entities.  The nonprofit gets services at a reduced rate and cash donations to pay for ongoing expenses and salaries.  The private company gets a steady stream of business contracts that makes it healthier.  A few Google searches reveal that there are literally tens of thousands of these public-private-partnership in the United States including PPPs that are run by the Federal Government:  http://ppp.od.nih.gov/pppinfo/foundation.asp  and also large private foundations that create relationships between various entities: http://nationaldevelopmentcouncil.org/blog/?p=1412 .

Over the past few years I have struck by how many times I have come across these relationships.  A typical example is   In my home town we have a not-for-profit hospital that has a 501©(3)  tax exempt  Foundation.  The Foundation collects donations and writes grants to the tune of $2,000,000 a year.  When indigent patients arrive at the hospital, the Foundation pays for the nonprofit for the health health care.  About a year ago I started a program for uninsured patients at my office where we provide healthcare for a flat monthly fee of $45 per person per month.  I went to this nonprofit hospital and offered to pay the hospital the Medicare per diem for our area for these uninsured patients ($1,800 a day) the hospital turned the offer down.  The stated reason was that the hospital makes close to the Blue Cross Blue Shield reimbursement rate from the 501©(3) Foundation for the care of indigent patients.  The hospital is very successful and is always building and adding something new to their campus even in the middle of a severe recession.

What does this mean to us?

The OpenEMR project has always depended on the donations of software from individual developers and the donations of time that they put in on the forums.  It has been a while since I polled the most active developers as to how much time and how much software they donate to the project.  I think the last time I did this was 2008 at which point we were receiving about $800,000 a year in donated software and volunteer time.  I would suspect that this has probable doubled in the last two years.  In exchange for this the project gives away free copies of software by anonymous download.  If we attach a fair market value of $35,000 per copy project has given away $1.2 Billion dollars of software in the last 12 months.  We get downloads from 170 different countries and are especially popular in the US, India, Nepal.

The problem is that the current development method depends on a private individual or clinic who requests an enhancement of OpenEMR which is then produced by a private developer.  OpenEMR is “easy to use”, is rich in features features, and has a functional-utilitarian appearing user interface.   But nothing has been done to the inner workings of OpenEMR.  The database development is a mess.  It has a GUI that “only a mother could love.”  This “feature” development is very typical of how MS developed their software.  Pretty, glitsy, lots of features, very poor security on the inside.  But users weren’t concerned with security, after all “who would attack my computer”.  This development model led to a staggering industry of virus coders that has been a plague on all of us. 

The other problem with the typical OpenEMR development method is that inside OpenEMR is somewhat like a 17 or early 18th century watch.  Every part inside is meticulously hand constructed and exquisitely have fitted.  Only the wealthy can make modifications to the watch and Lord help you if the watch maker moves away, retires or dies.  Only the original watchmaker knows the intricacies of that watch to be able to make repairs.  What happens if the original watchmaker doubles his rates?  Well you just have to pay up or live with a broken watch.  What happens if the watchmaker gets offended?  I guess you might offer 4 times as much money and hope you get lucky.  The only way to get around this problem is to modernize the watch.  There are two main ways to do this.  One way is to plan an orderly change from the old hand-fitted parts and convert them to more modern interchangeable mass produced parts.  The other way is to scrap the old thing, hang it on the shelf and start over from scratch with mass produced modern parts.  Now choosing between the first way and the second way will set likely off ideological wars and perhaps cause online “e-shouting.”  Either way, it has to eventually happen to make further progress.

Our problem is that individual paying clients will never, ever pay for this type of transition.  To do so there needs to an organization willing to do the hard stuff to make this happen.  This is the real propose of organizing the two nonprofits Open Source Medical Software and the OEMR.  Somebody has to be willing to pay for this change to occur.  What I have been proposing more or less successfully is that the nonprofit should be in the business of raising money to effect this transformation.  It also means forming public-private-partnerships with qualified vendors.  The 501©(3) OEMR raises the money and pays the vendors to do this work.  I recommend that the board use only qualified vendors and that only use vendors who are willing to cooperate.  Telling the board of directors “no” or refusing to cooperate with the board means to me that the vendor should be left off the qualified vendors list.  As in other public private partnerships I think that the vendors needs to contribute cash back to the nonprofit.  Refusing to donate cash to the 501©(3) for the common benefit of the project also means being left off the qualified vendors list.  This is how a Public Private Partnership functions.

We are looking for help with both fund raising and grant writing.  Please contact Dru White (druwhite at gmail dot com ) to offer your assistance.

The new OEMR board has an attorney, an accountant, a money guy, and two software vendors.  The OEMR board is soliciting new board members for OEMR, especially physicians, practice administrators, fund raisers, and grant writers.  If your do decide to volunteer for the board we want people who actively participate and do useful work for the nonprofit not just talk at the board meetings.  Board meetings will be scheduled quarterly and are held by telephone conference.  If you want to volunteer to be on this board contact Tony McCormick (tony at MI-Squared.com).

Sam Bowen, MD
Open Source Medical Software

drbowen wrote on Sunday, January 09, 2011:

I know this will not be accepted by all the vendors in the project and may set off more flame wars but this is the nature of how a Public Private Partnership functions.  The real hard truth is that it takes cash to run this project.  While donated software and donated time are critical elements, they are not sufficient for what comes next.

To the credit of Chris Lucena at EHRLive ( http://www.ehrlive.com ), he is the only vendor to make good on the often made promise of contributing part of their profit as cash back to the project.

Sam Bowen, MD
Open Source Medical Software

sunsetsystems wrote on Sunday, January 09, 2011:

Sam, thank you for working so hard to get money into the project.  Money talks!

Now it’s always been my thought that OEMR.org could benefit greatly by bringing on a large membership base of *general* members, not just board members, who are willing to pay modest dues to support the project and have a say in how those dues are used.  Doesn’t the organization’s charter call for board members being elected by the general membership?

In this way you can have a large membership base that does contribute and influence the project, even though many or most of them may not have the time or inclination to be active in other ways - and their dues will become “seed money” that is not restricted as grants typically are.  Of course grants are important also, but there’s got to be more.

Also I think OEMR.org should build its own identity and differentiate itself somewhat from the OpenEMR project on SourceForge.  It can take on the role of a major sponsor representing like-minded users, much as some other organizations have sponsored major improvements to the software for the benefit of their users.  SourceForge is all about providing tools for developers (and similarly open source philosophy is developer-centric), and thus SF projects as such are run by their developers.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

bradymiller wrote on Sunday, January 09, 2011:

In regards to Rod’s above comments:

My thoughts are our main goal is to funnel potential new users into the OpenEMR demo, OpenEMR downloads, and/or OpenEMR user documentation. Since, most users from the search engine pass through the oemr.org page, probably a good idea to not hinder this pipeline too much. Meaning, a potential new user may go somewhere else if the site is simply about the OEMR organization; that kind of stuff is important, but it’s not what a potential new user really cares about (they mostly want to test/download the software). My thoughts are that the demo, download, and wiki (documentation) links should continue to be the most prominent parts of the oemr.org page (if our goal is to garner the largest userbase possible via web).

-brady

juggernautsei wrote on Sunday, January 09, 2011:

I was reading this exchange and would like to through in a though.
I think we all have the same desires for this project to move it forward to the entity that it has the potential to become.

It would be great if all of this energy and enthusiasm could be channeled into a productive force to propel this project into a force that can reveal MediSoft and the other big guy on the block along with practice fusion.
My point being, let us all follow the example laid down by Chris Lucena and his team. If we are profiting from this product, let us put back in the pot and it can grow to a substantial cash flow that can bring about all the desires of this product/group.

juggernautsei wrote on Monday, January 10, 2011:

Hi,

I had a thought that I hope will help to raise funds to accomplish the goal. I believe there are a lot of us out here that are making some money from OpenEMR. We should be more than willing to open our pockets and return money on a free opportunity that we all saw in the product.

Dr. Bowen,  I would send money but I am too lazy to write a check each month to send to you. I don’t make excuses for it but I do the same with bills that require me to write a check. I just prefer to pay online as much as I can.

Now with that said, for my own company I use 2checkout.com to setup reoccurring billing. The expense is a lot less than those of a merchant card company like authorizenet. Could you please help us out that don’t like writing checks and post a link where we can have funds debited from our PayPal account or debt cards on a monthly basis. I would jump on that in a New York minute!

If you have this already setup, could you repost the information for us that would like to give but forgotten how to write checks?

Also, I would like to issue a challenge for all that are hosting, modifying or making any amount of money from OpenEMR to pledge $15/mo for one year. Then, this time next year, let us see what we have accomplished with one voice and one path.

Sherwin
www.jse.net

drbowen wrote on Monday, January 10, 2011:

Dear Rod,

I like your idea of a general membership and always have.  General membership is part of the Fund Raising category.  The original plan in the fall of 2009 was to temporarily move the wiki to Open Source Medical Software and then after the web robots settled move it back to oemr.org.  I have been waiting on this general membership phase for after the oemr.org web page has been set up.  Most, in fact probably all, people donating to a nonprofit expect their donations to be tax deductible.  This is true of OEMR but it is not true of Open Source Medical Software.  Currently there is ability to donate electronically through PayPal to OSMS.  This setup needs to be completed for OEMR.  OEMR now has a bank account set up through the ubiquitous Bank of America but I don’t know if electronic donations are set up yet since this is being handled by Greg Neuman and Tony McCormick.  PayPal is fairly expensive since they have been taking out about 7% of the total donation.  Most of the funding is intended for the OpenEMR project and should come in through OEMR.  By the way, I am not the greatest bookkeeper and was hoping perhaps Greg Neuman could take this over?

To set up this type of general membership I think we should be offering the members something in return such as a news letter, automatic notification of new releases, etc.   Again, to do this i would need help.  Perhaps you could volunteer to do an article on OpenEMR programming principles for new developers?  Brady or Stephen Smith could have small github HOWTOs.  I could do some some articles on how I use OpenEMR.  It would also be fine to accept articles from qualified vendors.  But we need to give back something for this membership.

What has been slowing this down the most is that we never converted the wiki back to oemr.org and I have been waiting for this to happen.   Nationally we have been taking flak for 1) staying on SourceForge 2) OSMS only supporting OpenEMR.  There was fairly open derision at the last OSHeathCon in Houston about the project continuing to use SourceForge.  After a project gets up to a certain size they usually just start using their own established public web page setting up forums, downloads and such.  This gives the project much more control over its web presence.  Splitting the information between Open Source Medical Software and oemr.org I believe dilutes the real web presence.  Currently the bounce rate on oemr.org is about 70-75% because most of the web traffic is currently searching for the content that is on OSMS.  Moving the wiki back to oemr.org and making links from OSMS back to the oemr.org will improve the bounce rate a lot and boost web rankings even more.  Having the forums hosted on oemr.org would also increase web rankings.

I am going to start adding additional project information to the OSMS site.  As an example I am hoping Garden State Health Systems would like to publish some information about their HIE.  Information on IndivoX and Open Health tools could be added.  Visolve does work with other projects besides OpenEMR and might want to have information about these projects on OSMS.  Moving most of the OpenEMR web content back to oemr.org and enhancing content about other projects on OSMS will benefit both organizations and serve to help focus the different missions of the two organizations.

I tried a few years ago to set up committees for the OSMS board meetings but we didn’t really have enough active members for this to be effective.  As the interest in the project grows perhaps we can now revisit this and see if it could be more effective.  The committees could be:

Executive committee – Responsible for overall direction and business matters of the organization, legal, accounting, funding of software development.  The executive committee should be made up of an attorney, and accountant, a representative of each of the subcommittees listed below.

Software committee – As you repeatedly point out Rod, Software development, coding guidelines, managing who should have what privileges, should best be managed by the software developers.  Ideally this committee should have members with significant OpenEMR development skills as well as GUI developers and DBAs.

Web Development – This should be a meeting of the web masters and pooling of their resources.

Resource Development – general membership drives, fund raising, grant writing, benefactor relationships and Public-Private-Partnership relations.

Vendor committee – Certification of Vendors.  There are two types of vendors.  Vendors that only do software development, vendors that only provide IT support and vendors that do both software development and IT support.  Certification of Software vendors should of course be handled by the software committee.

In terms of membership voting, we’ll have to get some general members first but otherwise this is the intent of setting up the by-laws this way.  My only reservation has been having something to offer this type of member.  There is going to be an OpenEMR conference in Houston on 02-12-2011.  This could be the first official public sign up day!  Mi-Squared.com, Patient Physician Cooperatives and Linked IPAs are sponsoring this conference.  Contact Tony McCormick for details.

Dear Sherwin,

You can make contributions through PayPal to Open Source Medical Software.  The OEMR PayPal should be coming soon.  Tony McCormick is handling the OEMR contributions (tony at MI-Squared.com).

It like your idea of regular contributions from the vendors.

Sam Bowen, MD
http://oemr.org

mkup wrote on Wednesday, January 12, 2011:

I’d not be the first to note that, if OpenEMR does not get certified by the summer of this year, it would stop being an attractive alternative to commercial EMR software for many US vendors and physicians.
I’d like to suggest as an enhancement to the current fund raising drive the board develops and publishes some specific information related to the certification Project Plan including dates and responsible:

    * 4.0 release
    * concrete certification steps  -  schedule and results when available
    * funds release schedule
    * payments made
    * contributors and contributions
    * How we can help

In my opinion transparency and specificity always help fund raisers

Mark Kuperman
Mi10, Inc

Also, Not only vendors profit from OpenEMR, but also doctors - no license fees, (in US) stimulus money

ehrlive wrote on Wednesday, January 12, 2011:

All,

I think we should clean up the Professional Support page because some of the companies listed no longer or don’t provide any services or products for OpenEMR. On one of them they even go as far to mention that the idea of making money off of OpenEMR is not possible (in less words than written).

I also would like to suggest that OSMS charge companies a fee to display their information on the Professional Support page. This will help provide money to host, support OSMS, etc. I know we wouldn’t mind paying a fee to have our information displayed as it’s great advertising and it’s supporting the costs associated with maintaining the site and hosting. This is not un-common practice among other open source projects.

Regards,
Chris
http://www.ehrlive.com

bradymiller wrote on Friday, January 14, 2011:

Chris,

I monitor that page, so not sure how that comment got past me. Please send me an email with more specifics. On last check several months ago, most of the links worked (if you ntoe any broken, then send me an email with them).

I’d rather not force a fee to post on the commercial support page. Goal (for me at least) is to get as many vendors as possible; wouldn’t want to present a financial hurdle for vendors just starting out. (note this is just my opinion; this is obviously a decision for the community)

-brady

drbowen wrote on Monday, January 17, 2011:

This is just my opinion, but for your consideration:

The thing that is slowing down certification the most is money.  More money means faster certification.  The commercial vendors stand to reap a potential windfall from OpenEMR ONC Meaningful Use Certification.  It is a “chicken or the egg” problem.

Some of the vendors are contributing a lot in terms of development man hours.  Some of the vendors are just getting a free ride.  I think that all of the vendors who are getting listed on the commercial development web page should be contributing software or money.  I vote with Chris Lucena that the organization should be charging a monthly fee for placement here.  Vendors that are making heavy software contributions would be exempt.  We can poll the existing git integrators about who would qualify since they are actually reviewing the software and should have the best “worm’s eye” view of what is being contributed.

Non-software-contributing vendors should be paying for the privilege of advertising here.  I think we should further differentiate between qualified software developers, hosting vendors, and organizations who are just advertising their services but who we otherwise don’t know very much about.  The board has discussed in the past the idea of certified vendors, and I think the time is upon when we should start forming this program. 

A re-organization of the commercial support page might be along the lines:

Certified Software developers – this should be by consensus of the existing software git integrators.

Certified Support – There are certainly some organizations that would “grand-father” into this category.  New Vendors coming in should be tested in some fashion in terms of their competence.  This would require some sort of testing that is objective and fair.

Advertising Vendors – The ones we don’t know much about.

Some organizations would qualify under both the Certified Vendors and also Certified Support categories.

We also need to spruce up the oemr.org web page.  I have been working on upgrading the Drupal modules and am also adding drop-down menus to reflect the existing links on the oemr.org front page.  Once this has been accomplished we can start charging for membership to the organization or at least asking for a contribution at the time of joining.  This would be the “regular membership” category.

Proceeds from the membership fees for regular members and advertising revenue on the commercial vendor list would go towards the ONC certification fee.  Revenues in excess of the certification fee would be used by the oemr.org board of directors to facilitate progress towards the software needed to achieve certification.

Can we have a calender or schedule of when certification will occur?  Well, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) this is still an all voluntary project with no paid employees of any sort.   The development is slow.  This is the nature of this type of project because the software gets done in between paying clients, by professional developers and then donated on an as finished basis.   Until we get some sponsors, paying real money, the schedule will be like all other similar projects.

Sam Bowen, MD
oerm.org

sunsetsystems wrote on Monday, January 17, 2011:

Some of this discussion puzzles me a bit, as it’s surely up to the OEMR.org board of directors to decide the policies for its web site of the same name.

That said, I’m certainly willing so share my opinions.

First, I agree with most of the things said here.  Second, I’d like to see the web site used in a way that preserves its favorable search engine rankings and has separate areas for the nonprofit vs. the OpenEMR software project.  Third, I think a simple list of known vendors, each item being a simple entry of very limited size (shorter than most of those already there), should be there for informational purposes without any charge.  Fourth, tasteful advertising should be allowed for a fee (within whatever confines there may be for a tax-exempt organization).  Fifth, I think OEMR.org should be very aggressive in recruitment and involvement of new members, especially those who are doctors and clinic managers (see my earlier comments about that in this thread).

There are lots of smart people here and I’m confident that wise decisions will be made.  Thanks for listening!

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com