For some reason, health care experts are puzzled as to why U.S. physicians have been slow to adopt electronic medical records. The answer isn’t very complicated, as Kevin, MD explains in USA Today:

The primary reason is financial. Upfront costs — which include purchasing servers, computers and software — can be as high as $36,000 per physician … In addition, the learning curve for these programs is steep, increasing the amount of time a physician spends per patient.

New technologies are adopted en masse when they are easier, faster, and cheaper to use than old technologies. EMR, at present, is harder, slower, and more expensive than the paper charts they are expected to replace.

Any questions?

Comments 1

  1. teqjack wrote:

    OK, expensive in a lot of ways.

    But… transportability could be accomplished for a heck of a lot less. Keep the paper records, but before filing use a multi-function printer (circa $100) to make a computer copy and append/update to current computer record. The whole file would probably fit on a 128Megabyte flash drive (circa $2, or less bought by the dozen including a printed logo) for quick transport, or transmitted for even quicker transport (circa $0.04). I recieved such a drive for free, and have put some emergency info (I am O NEG idiot, not O positive as some of the places I have been tested claimed) on it to keep in a pocket.

    Posted 01 Oct 2008 at 5:45 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *