I hadn't seen it put that way before. I like it. Part of my problem with EMRs is that I think of too much of my data as freeform, nongeneric data and can't conceive of how to render it into a generic form. Such thinking habits were formed in my training and are unlikely to change much. Certainly EMRs make more sense for younger docs, especially those just entering practice. Although the added capital expense, on top of student loan debt, would make starting a practice from scratch a bitch. If we warp the economics so that only larger practices are viable how are we going to offer care to rural areas where there aren't enough patients to support such? And my experience against EMRs isn't just in my field and from my age. A younger cousin married an FP, who first tried one right out of residency. She said then it added 1-2 hours to each day for her. Now my own FP uses one and makes it seem easy, but says they keep having to change their software vender.
Having worked with computers since I was 13 and watched their evolution I think this can be made to work eventually and become a 'good thing', but will take much longer that EMR proponents want to think and likely end up significantly different than they imagine. And it will get there sooner and better if it is permitted to evolve rather than mandated from above. One size fit all 'solutions' should be rejected out of hand.
I don't know anything specific about Santorum's take on EMRs either, but wouldn't expect him to be a hard core promoter of them based on his overall health care philosophy. I do know that like Newt, he's a proponent of "lean six sigma" reforms - they both state that often- although I don't understand much specifically of what's in that. Philosophically I'm leery of making government TOO efficient. As were the Framers. Governmental inefficiency is one of our protections against too much governmental power.
that is it, isn't it? all those little touchstones that older docs are comfortable with or do habitually, don't mean that much to today's young practitioners, who don't attach the same value system to specifics...
Certainly EMRs make more sense for younger docs, especially those just entering practice. Although the added capital expense, on top of student loan debt, would make starting a practice from scratch a bitch. If we warp the economics so that only larger practices are viable how are we going to offer care to rural areas where there aren't enough patients to support such? And my experience against EMRs isn't just in my field and from my age. A younger cousin married an FP, who first tried one right out of residency. She said then it added 1-2 hours to each day for her. Now my own FP uses one and makes it seem easy, but says they keep having to change their software vender.
I have heard some docs say they consider the EMRs another member of the practice, that has to be catered to, updated, considered like any partner, and they must stay involved with, and I think more than anything they resent the required involvement.
Having worked with computers since I was 13 and watched their evolution I think this can be made to work eventually and become a 'good thing', but will take much longer that EMR proponents want to think and likely end up significantly different than they imagine.
and if enough people wander off while it is all still in this sort of nebulous state - not quite codified or seriously mandated and still somewhat experimental - some might find their own hybrid solutions of sorts...
And it will get there sooner and better if it is permitted to evolve rather than mandated from above. One size fit all 'solutions' should be rejected out of hand.
I don't know anything specific about Santorum's take on EMRs either, but wouldn't expect him to be a hard core promoter of them based on his overall health care philosophy. I do know that like Newt, he's a proponent of "lean six sigma" reforms - they both state that often- although I don't understand much specifically of what's in that.
It supposedly does remarkably transformative and reformative stuff to stacked systems, which just makes me very skeptical, also.
Philosophically I'm leery of making government TOO efficient. As were the Framers. Governmental inefficiency is one of our protections against too much governmental power.
that is very interesting. I never thought about it that way, I wouldn't mind a dash of competence amidst the inefficiency, though.