Both. It's extraordinarily complex. The data entry is highly structured. All the electronic record software I've seen has probably ~100 pages worth of forms, a

Both. It's extraordinarily complex. The data entry is highly structured. All the electronic record software I've seen has probably ~100 pages worth of forms, a big subset of which usually need to be filled out for each patient visit. It's not being "disrupted" because it's extremely capital intensive to enter this market. The requirements seem intractable: - Structured data with very high level of granularity. - Patients often don't fit the mold exactly. It's hard to classify something that is going on with a patient; there are 68,000 ICD-10 codes. - Data needs to be interoperable with existing and competing systems. - Every hospital has their processes and documentation practices. As a result, most electronic record software is highly customizable, and a company representative is usually on call or on site to continuously customize it. - Software needs extreme backwards compatibility. You need to be able to read records that are tens of years old. - Need to be able to print everything. - Need to meet regulatory requirements and security audits. Regulatory requirements vary by state and country. - Healthcare institutions are inherently conservative with their technology, and for likely good reason. Plus they don't upgrade equipment very often. If they just spent $1 billion upgrading their entire IT infrastructure, they're not going to consider your startup's solutions for awhile. - Patients don't like it when their provider is focused on a computer or taking notes instead of on them. - Different UI for each provider (e.g., primary care physician vs. pharmacist vs. radiologist) - Need to communicate with a wide variety of medical hardware that doesn't have good standard protocols, and much of which is very old. And on and on...