A doctor gives us the (lack of) incentives to convert:

Start with the cost of more than $37,000, plus some $14,000 per year on maintenance. Then there are the weeks out of practice to learn the new system and the slowdown while everyone becomes familiar with using it. Then add, as Technology Editor Ken Terry mentions, that the payers will simply lower their rates to counteract the improved documentation and coding.

As at least one researcher has pointed out, EHRs in hospitals have not lowered the error rate but rather just changed the type of errors committed. Huge amounts of over-documentation have also occurred. Another downside is the tendency of providers to concentrate on the computer screen and not the patient. And do I really lose that many records or lab results to make switching worth it in my little solo practice? The answer is No.

So, there are a huge cost, no real financial benefit, and little other advantage. I am underwhelmed.

MD Net Guide also with the case against EHRs.