5 ms·

People should instead just vote with you feet and dollars. That'll be inconvenient, but if it bothers you enough, you'll make the effort. A crucial part of thi

People should instead just vote with you feet and dollars. That'll be inconvenient, but if it bothers you enough, you'll make the effort. A crucial part of this approach is to let your doctor know exactly why you're leaving. If they're losing business over it, they'll look for alternatives. And if the EHR company loses money, they'll look to make changes, too.

ryandrake 2y ago
Yea, I wouldn't put up with a doctor that required me to interact with him through an app. I'd switch doctors, and hopefully find a way to let the old doctor know why I'm switching. That's often the hardest part--actually finding an owner who is harmed when a customer leaves.
azemetre 2y ago
Usually when people say vote with your wallet, it means those with more money make the rules. What recourse does an individual have if they live in a rural area with 1 or 3 doctors that all use the same hostile software? Should they suffer because they don't have money or the ability to go else where?
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Most people don't have 3 doctors let alone 3 which all use the same niche/bad customer facing software. Those that do should organize to make their displeasure known. Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes. If they live somewhere with 1 doc they should vote with their feet by leaving before the town finishes dying around them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - azemetre 2y ago
    So we should condemn large swaths of the rural population to not only abject poverty, but remove health care access too? Is this what you're seriously arguing? That people should be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis? Do you not see how people read this as completely heartless and devoid of empathy towards their fellow man?
    - genewitch 2y ago
      Yeah I should move out of the subtropical rain forest and move back to urban asthma and traffic and crime, and noise. The idea that my neighbors and I are gunna go picket the only person within 20 miles that can write a prescription is ludicrous.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      >Be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis? Literally already the case and more so care isn't cheaper unlike land so your lesser dollars buys lesser care and no realistic access to specialists
      - Neonlicht 2y ago
        Reminds me of how the CCP pays doctors extra money to work in rural areas. And I read an article on how gynecologists are fleeing the American South. And even in my own country there is lack of GPs in some provinces.
  - janc_ 2y ago
    Most such bad software is provided by a small number of very large companies, so none of it is "niche".
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes. It's not some coincidence that just about every company in every sector is screwing over more and more people. This is all extremely calculated. We've decided that making the most money is all that matters and we're seeing the inevitable results of that choice everywhere around us. If shareholders got richer by providing people with quality healthcare and well designed websites and the freedom to use or not use mobile technology we'd already have those things. No one cares how shitty they make our lives or even how many of us they kill as long as they keep the ability to stuff more money into their pockets this quarter than they did last quarter. The people doing this shit to us aren't incompetent. What we want from them isn't what they're optimizing for. Maybe you haven't noticed the massive amount of consolidation in every industry going on, but consider that voting with your wallet gets harder over time. Consider how many companies you're personally giving your money to right now while wishing you had an alternative that better met your needs. Voting with your wallet is not a real option. The fattest wallet will always win.
drdaeman 2y ago
Surely it's not a well-functioning market, when the client (the medical organization) had accepted and paid for a clearly dysfunctional software that harms their operations. Yet, they somehow survive and continue to function despite it. And thus it's questionable whenever voting with wallet would work. It works in healthy, free and competitive markets with rational actors, and we probably aren't looking at one.

ryandrake 2y ago

Yea, I wouldn't put up with a doctor that required me to interact with him through an app. I'd switch doctors, and hopefully find a way to let the old doctor know why I'm switching. That's often the hardest part--actually finding an owner who is harmed when a customer leaves.

azemetre 2y ago

Usually when people say vote with your wallet, it means those with more money make the rules. What recourse does an individual have if they live in a rural area with 1 or 3 doctors that all use the same hostile software? Should they suffer because they don't have money or the ability to go else where?

michaelmrose 2y ago
Most people don't have 3 doctors let alone 3 which all use the same niche/bad customer facing software. Those that do should organize to make their displeasure known. Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes. If they live somewhere with 1 doc they should vote with their feet by leaving before the town finishes dying around them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- azemetre 2y ago
  So we should condemn large swaths of the rural population to not only abject poverty, but remove health care access too? Is this what you're seriously arguing? That people should be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis? Do you not see how people read this as completely heartless and devoid of empathy towards their fellow man?
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Yeah I should move out of the subtropical rain forest and move back to urban asthma and traffic and crime, and noise. The idea that my neighbors and I are gunna go picket the only person within 20 miles that can write a prescription is ludicrous.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    >Be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis? Literally already the case and more so care isn't cheaper unlike land so your lesser dollars buys lesser care and no realistic access to specialists
    - Neonlicht 2y ago
      Reminds me of how the CCP pays doctors extra money to work in rural areas. And I read an article on how gynecologists are fleeing the American South. And even in my own country there is lack of GPs in some provinces.
- janc_ 2y ago
  Most such bad software is provided by a small number of very large companies, so none of it is "niche".
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes. It's not some coincidence that just about every company in every sector is screwing over more and more people. This is all extremely calculated. We've decided that making the most money is all that matters and we're seeing the inevitable results of that choice everywhere around us. If shareholders got richer by providing people with quality healthcare and well designed websites and the freedom to use or not use mobile technology we'd already have those things. No one cares how shitty they make our lives or even how many of us they kill as long as they keep the ability to stuff more money into their pockets this quarter than they did last quarter. The people doing this shit to us aren't incompetent. What we want from them isn't what they're optimizing for. Maybe you haven't noticed the massive amount of consolidation in every industry going on, but consider that voting with your wallet gets harder over time. Consider how many companies you're personally giving your money to right now while wishing you had an alternative that better met your needs. Voting with your wallet is not a real option. The fattest wallet will always win.

drdaeman 2y ago

Surely it's not a well-functioning market, when the client (the medical organization) had accepted and paid for a clearly dysfunctional software that harms their operations. Yet, they somehow survive and continue to function despite it. And thus it's questionable whenever voting with wallet would work. It works in healthy, free and competitive markets with rational actors, and we probably aren't looking at one.