|
|
|
|
|
by Brybry
3384 days ago
|
|
But most physicians don't work for hospitals. They work at small practices with 10 physicians or fewer (according to the AMA). There was a completely open market, made of the majority of physicians, regardless of existing provider contracts with hospitals. I know I talked to a few physicians (and other healthcare professionals) in the mid-2000s who lamented the paperwork they had to do every day and the lack of available computer automation. |
|
If you're a hospital with lab facilities, imaging facilities, surgical facilities etc. it's hugely useful to have medical records flow internally (quasi-)seamlessly. The EMR does that well, and the large cost of typing things into the EMR (it's slow, painful, annoying, never met a doc who preferred it to the old clipboard and notes system) is totally worth it.
For a small practice, that intercommunication problem isn't anywhere near as large, but the cost of typing things in painfully is the same. So small practices hate it.
And before you say, "but it's useful to share medical records between offices/specialists/hospitals when they move around", it turns out that a lot of these systems don't play very well with one another. Even between two healthcare systems that share the same software provider (in this case Epic, one of the big two, the other one is Cerner), I've heard people finding it easier to print it out, fax it over, and scan it back in. Yes there are people who want to solve that problem, (see YC's own https://www.patientbank.us), but it's a tough area because who pays for the service? How expensive is it to build software that interacts with all the 10 zillion different flavors of Epic? How do you harmonize the peculiarities in how people actually record the data in those systems? It's really really hard.