Former Medscape and Journal of the American Medical Association Editor Dr. George Lundberg had this response to Dr. John Haughton's opinion piece on government Health IT spending. ("Stimulus Bill Offers Docs Big Incentives but Demands Effective Use.")
"There are many reasons why physicians in general (excluding
pathologists, radiologists, intensivists, anesthesiologists,large
multi-specialty groups) have not yet embraced healthcare information
technology. I refer interested readers to for Blake Lesselroth's unique take
on the barriers to full clinician adoption of HIT and how to overcome
some of them.
Dr. Robert Rowley's post on his company's advertising based electronic medical record system ("Freenomics and Healthcare IT') prompted this response from Scott Shreeve MD
I was an early critic of Practice Fusion when I first heard of their business model. However, I have come around for many of the reasons that Dr. Rowley and Dr. Kibbe mention. In fact, I would suspect that I am the only commenter on this section that has actually used the software in to take care of patients (Crossover Health personal health advisory service). Getting a tool (an EMR) into the hands of providers (much better than paper) who can use it to improve patient care is a good thing. The fact that the tool comes with some branded messaging is tolerated because the price (free) and the ease of use is so compelling (installed in minutes).
In terms of software, I have found the features/functionality of the software to be sufficient for now, the look and feel to adequate, and the rate of ongoing development to be intriguing (several key updates over last several months). There are definitely some holes that need to be plugged, some functionality that needs to be added, but overall I find it from an EMR perspective to be "good enough".
In terms of business model, the adware component is irritating. They have flashing ads for vendors, devices, drugs, and non-medical things like mortgages. I consider all of this "collateral damage" and just completely tune it out. I never have and never plan to click on any of the ads and just mentally block them out. Again, if this is the way to help "subsidize" my use, then I tolerate it voluntarily. If it becomes too distasteful, than I can pony up $250 per month to have no ads. I know this going in and accept it at face value.
In terms of ethics, come on man. Do you think I am going to start prescribing something because of an ad that I am ignoring? The detail people are much more influential because they develop a personal relationship, buy you food, and provide peer reviewed studies that can alter your decision making. I just don't see that same type of connection or influence from impersonal ads that I am ignoring anyway ….