Everyone wants electronic medical (health) records. However, paying for them and deciding which format to use are the two major unanswered questions. We have seen technology battles over the past 30 years, such as: phonograph records versus 8 track tapes, 8 track tape versus cassettes, cassettes versus CD’s, beta versus VHS, VHS versus DVD, and now DVD versus Blue Ray . . . get the point. Not to mention the computer battles (Windows, Apple and so forth). Physicians cannot afford to retool over and over unless there is going to be some mechanism to help underwrite those costs. Inevitably, a web based solution is likely to be the most economical, feasible. This would also have the added benefits of being able to be monitored and upgraded on a regular basis relative cheaply . . . jomaxx
In a letter to the editor of the (7/1), AMA president Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D., Ph.D., writes in response to the June 24 titled, Our Pen-and-Paper Doctors, that the “American Medical Association agrees that if electronic health record (EHRs) systems are appropriately implemented and truly interoperable, widespread electronic health record adoption has the potential to transform the way physicians practice medicine.” Dr. Nielsen also notes that although “barriers to adoption remain,” physicians “are taking steps to overcome them.” In fact, she points out that “physicians are eager to continue working to accelerate widespread adoption of EHRs, so that” they “can fully embrace new technologies that benefit patients, and improve the delivery of healthcare.”
. . . link to the full article @ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/opinion/lweb01doctors.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
