As other comments mention, this project has been going for a while, the central reason it (or something like it) has not been robustly built out and deployed universally is because of the way congress chose to structure the funding for development of EMRs/EHRs. Rather than trying to find a system that could be universalized, the (idiotic) plan has been to give millions of dollars to multiple corporations to develop systems, then subsidize the purchase cost to providers to encourage adoption. Then, only once everyone has invested in their own proprietary system will they begin trying to universalize the system by developing cross compatibility. This methodology is perfectly in line with the free-market approach that the US has championed for decades. It is also the opposite of how almost every other country has developed and adopted universal EMRs. Sad. Especially because we know that a good, affordable universal EMR would significantly enhance the ability to deliver care for almost all sizes of healthcare providers.
Why is the almost no other coverage of this if it is indeed legitimate evidence of some connection? Even if it's its just conspiracy theory, I'd have thought people would be all over it.
If correct, the comment from jasode is much clearer at explaining the point of the site than the landing page. I got it that they were comparing brokers, but its not clear that this is the point of the site.