4 ms·
Short answer: hospitals, insurance companies, governments Long answer: It's not like people don't understand that the current situation is suboptimal. It's tha
by quanticle 8y ago
Short answer: hospitals, insurance companies, governments
Long answer: It's not like people don't understand that the current situation is suboptimal. It's that any kind of change implemented unilaterally will leave you unable to communicate with your counterparties. The severe consequences of this (not getting paid, being out of compliance with HIPAA) means that any kind of change to health-care IT at a system-wide level requires an absolutely massive amount of politicking and often fails to improve the situation.
The problem is that health care institutions are so interlinked that driving any kind of global change is a process best measured in decades. Combine this with the fact that the culture in health care is very conservative, and people tend to be hostile towards change by default and you have a situation where it's often easier to leave the industry and save your sanity than to remain and continue bashing your head into a brick wall over and over again.
- wolco 8y agoThe more interconnected the greater the energy required to change from the groundup but trivial to change at the top (submit in this format or no payment)
- quanticle 8y agoExcept that health care has no "top". If an insurance company tried to unilaterally impose a new standard, they'd quickly lose support among hospitals, and then they'd lose their subscribers shortly thereafter.
- PeterisP 8y agoWith a [mostly-]single-payer system (i.e. pretty much everywhere in the world except the US) there is a clearly defined "top" that can unilaterally require particular standards for e.g. electronic health records. Also, for USA, legal requirements (such as HIPAA) are universal and can impose certain standards on the whole industry, as long as there's political will to do so.