For every founder building in Australian health tech: your product works only as long as the system of record lets it.
Heidi versus Best Practice Software isn’t really a fight between two companies. It’s what happens when nothing forces software vendors to open the door to clinical data.
As a quick recap for those just tuning in, Heidi II uses AI agents that read Bp Premier records through the screen. Heidi says that’s because it couldn’t get proper integration access in three years of trying.
Last week Best Practice told users this breaches its licence agreement, raised privacy, safety and TGA concerns, and is moving to ban bots and robotic process automation in its end user licence agreement.
My take, as a doctor and a health-tech founder is that Best Practice isn’t wrong that an AI reading patient records needs consent, governance and accountability.
Heidi isn’t wrong that a screen-reading workaround only exists because the front door was shut.
Neither of them should be the one deciding this. The US has the Cures Act. We have voluntary standards and EULAs. The AMA was calling for mandatory interoperability, with real penalties, back in January.
Related
What we actually need is three things:
- A standard, auditable way for approved tools to access the record.
- Clear rules on patient consent when AI reads a chart, not just when it listens to a consult.
- TGA guidance that keeps pace with AI agents, not just scribes
Until then, the risk sits with clinicians. Practices sign the licences. GPs get the alerts and answer to patients.
And for every founder building in Australian healthtech: your product works only as long as the system of record lets it.
This is a policy problem. Should Canberra mandate this, or leave it to the market?
Dr Anurag Ganugapati is a clinician, and founder and CEO of StatDoctor and founder of StatHospital, an AI-first platform to allow doctors to find, apply and get paid by healthcare facilities.
This article was first published on Dr Ganugapati’s LinkedIn feed. Read the original here.