"1,000 doctors in Massachusetts to go electronic, creating 20 new jobs in the process."

WOW! 20 jobs! Boy I bet that put Massachusetts on the Map in Job Creation! And I be it did cost them millions.

You like cherry picking, huh?

200,000 jobs nationwide.

I bet you like the horse and buggy too!

Yea, If I owned a Corp that grossed 1.4 billion annually I would be pushing for electronic medical records too...

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com...1-1059240.html

Like I said, behind every person who does research and calls them self a Doctor while pushing a platform is a multimillion dollar company.
I don't take buzz names like "Harvard Medical School" as proof of efficiency. Nice try though.

I wouldnt expect any other response! ;)

While you ignore this guy helps run a company that makes 1.4 billion. Yea, thats some cheap health care right there. Guess who paid for that? Patients and insurance companies.

And check this out paranoids. This is the same doctor that wants to put a chip in all of you.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/hard...9272554,00.htm

Hey it might be a good idea. Who is going to make the money on that technology?

I dont have time now to read the full interview.

Can you post the Q&A section where he said he wants to put a chip in all of us. It looks to me like he said he is also for opting out if a patient chooses.

I'll check back later to see the section you post.

Thanks!

I am not against computerized medical records. That is not the point here. The point is does it decrease costs? Does it save time? My response is not at first. Maybe over a long period of time it will. Start up costs are EXTREMELY expensive. A brand new Dell computer is now at every bedside all over the hospital all connected via hard wire to a main server, bet that was cheap. I know that in many cases it will decrease medical errors and that in the long run saves millions alone. But with all good comes some trade offs.

And then there are the people who are making money off of it, the same people telling us all how great it is going to be for us:

http://govhealthit.com/Articles/2007...ding-edge.aspx

I am sure they gave it to Microsoft at a discount, you know for the good of the patient and skyrocketing costs of healthcare.

TAIL POST
 

This is light-years from practical implementation. And I say that as a person working on the front lines of integrating healthcare IT systems--I'm a PACS admin, I work under the IHE umbrella of interoperability standards such as DICOM and HL7 (which are poorly implemented by vendors who see propietary functionality as leverage against their competitors, and frankly, the customer having control of their own data). Healthcare IT is struggling to progress past the dark ages.

Say it brother, this time louder.

The military has gone kicking and screaming into the process. Due to the size and cost of these projects PER HOSPITAL, the money is allocated years before, which means that the purchase is made one year, and implemented sometimes 2 or more years later. Guess what? They don't get the free up grade. We are using Essentris. It is working. Guess what? The year after the bought this program they bought a different one. Next year they take this one out and everyone has to learn the new one. Oh, and Essentris DOES NOT INTERFACE with CHCS except in a very limited way. It does not interface with the outpatient notes program CHCS2 Alta. So now we have three programs that are required to take care of one patient. None of them interface with the monitors. No real time data. Guess what? We use a paper chart for that stuff.

The whole idea that Obama is going to pour money into the health care system and the private system at that is bullcrap. And if he does it is not going to fix it, but it will make a small group of people very very rich. So the private plastic surgery center is going to get free government money to go all electronic with their records? How about the privately owned doctors hospital? How about that 3000 bed inter-city hospital. Does anyone know just how much it would cost to wire up a 3000 bed hospital with computers, laptops, hard wire, training, programs, updates, onsite trainers, IT trouble shooters, etc.? The public is getting smoke blown up its collective skirt.

Let's be clear here. I am not against electronic records. It has merits if properly implemented.

That's me. And I'll tell you. The big healthcare IT vendors are not structured to support implementations at smaller, rural facilities such as ourselves. The problem is that the basic infrastructure of a "paperless" hospital is NOT SCALABLE. (Because of the small size and lower volume of our facility, our resources in the IT department are very limited. However, we still have to build all the same systems and interfaces etc. as the larger facilities--which the big vendors are "tuned" to.)

This doesn't even approach the real issue: that the vendors approach the established standards of interoperability as a set of very loose suggestions, that they skirt or downright ignore at their discretion.

Throwing money at this problem isn't going to fix a broken industry. The solution will only come when the vendors adhere to the interoperability standards THAT ALREADY EXIST AND HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO WORK IF IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY.

Until that time, you will continue to need high-paid guys such as myself to stitch your disparate systems together.

We lost 623,000 jobs last month.

And how much of this bill is going to vanish along the way?

It only costs me $65,000 a year, everything included, to create a job for a journeyman mechanic.

Why does it cost so fucking much for this bill to create each job?

If you've got something for that mechanic to do.