Is Electronic Medicine Worthless?
As Congress debates the future of the American healthcare system, a common point of discussion is the benefit of computerized medical records. But a new study suggests that the cost savings will be “nonexistent.”
Emily Badger, writing for Miller-McCune, quotes Harvard professor David Himmelstein:
When asked why so many of us assume this to be true when it’s not, Himmelstein deferred to this YouTube clip of a cheery 1961 promotional video touting the endless promise of electronic medical records:
We’ve been convinced, Himmelstein says, by a 40-year marketing campaign and our own wishful thinking.
“We wish that there were a quick, easy solution that didn’t actually involve any difficult political decisions for how we’re going to save money for health care and improve the quality of care,” he said. “That’s part of what would be lovely about computers - gee, we don’t have to do anything but install this machine and solve all these problems.”
It seems shocking to suggest that four decades of technology advancement have had no impact on electronic medical records. Yet this is exactly what is predicted by the productivity paradox. Computer systems are supposed to make our lives easier, but they often have the opposite effect.
There are many reasons why this occurs. In the case of patient data, the stakeholders who design the system don’t necessarily have the same goals as those who use the system. Hospitals want to maximize billing so medical record tools ask lots of “just-in-case” questions, such as whether or not an interpreter was used during the consultation. But doctors and patients want the system to be efficient, not highly profitable. This conflict creates friction, and is part of the reason why these technologies still have a long way to go.
If computer systems seem to be working against you at your place of business, don’t be afraid to question whether computers are even the right tool. Take a step back, look at the larger issues of stakeholder needs and try to engage people directly. And if you’re ready to ask for help, contact the team at Slaughter Development. We help organizations become more productive and more satisfied.
❖ ❖ ❖
Like this post? Here are some related entries from The Methodology Blog you might enjoy:
December 21st, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I wholeheartedly agree that we seem to always be looking for the painless solution that avoids the fact that when resources are limited someone will bear a heavier price than someone else. Interestingly, in Taiwan and Japan, where virtually all medical records are easily and universally available, everyone gets healthcare more cheaply. The most painful fact of all is that the delivery of healthcare is best done by one provider- the federal gov. Its not the perfect answer just the most cost effective.