There’s a reason why universal electronic records are nothing but a pipe dream:
The high cost of EMRs, combined with a small return on investment, is a main reason why physicians have been slow to adopt systems . . . While some EMR functions, such as billing and transcribing notes, financially benefit physicians, most of the return on investment accrues to health plans.
Related posts:
- Op-ed: Why doctors still balk at electronic medical records
- My take: Electronic records, limiting care, Jarvik, loan forgiveness
- Electronic records and economic sense
- Poll: Will electronic medical records really save money?
- The low adoption rate of electronic records
- How the widespread adoption of electronic medical records can raise health care costs
- Paperless electronic medical records
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
The census bureau can’t even computerize the census taking—and that just gathers about 7 pieces of information per person–and they have had 10 years to plan.
despite the whining, I belive most doctors will make the switch on their own in the next 5 years. They will have to just to compete from a patient perspective and marketing point of view. Being “A modern day 21st century practice” is what is driving new patients to my office.
Also, the youtube, facebook, blackberry generation will not accept the archic, albeit cheap practice management systems from the 1970s.
So stop your whining, pick an EMR, prepare a realistic implmentation plan, and do it. You will have to anyway.
Comments on this entry are closed.