pajushi

Look at the maturity level of the HL7 resource. Those that are higher (5-6) are going to have more agreement on standards and have more turnkey setup.

For example, condition in the US is likely to use ICD-10. Procedures, especially those billed are going to use CPT or HCPCS.

Why shouldn't we hold science more accountable?

"Science needs accounting" is a search I had saved for months which really resonates with the idea of "peer replication."

In accounting, you always have checks and balances, you never are counting money alone. In many cases, accountants duplicate their work to make sure that it is accurate.

Auditors are the corollary to the peer review process. They're not there to redo your work, but to verify that your methods and processes are sound.

Unless you have additional sources, you're not being very honest. Standards exist like FHIR, published by HL7 which sets global standards for healthcare. https://www.hl7.org/

Epic provides support for these standards. https://fhir.epic.com/