This article seems overly negative. The tone makes it sound like computers should not exist in hospitals. I wonder what their agenda is? "The problem 'is mai

This article seems overly negative. The tone makes it sound like computers should not exist in hospitals. I wonder what their agenda is? "The problem 'is mainly that computer systems are built for the accountants and managers and not built to help doctors, nurses and patients,'" There are plenty of products out there specifically to help doctors and nurses, and an increasing amount are being installed in hospitals. If it is in fact true that a majority of hospitals only have billing software, I would say it is the fault of the hospital/institution in that they chose to go that route. "Implementing e-health records nationwide would cost between $75 billion and $100 billion, Brailer said, adding that individual hospitals "will have to make sizable, potentially multi-hundred-million-dollar budget commitments." Still, he said a fully functioning national electronic health system could reduce U.S. health care costs by $200 billion to $300 billion annually by cutting down on duplicate records, reducing record-keeping errors, avoiding fraudulent claims and better coordinating health care among providers. Himmelstein called those claims "unsupported."" The dollar amounts I don't know where come from, but the advantages of a universal health care record aren't too difficult to see. Supposedly 50+% of faulty diagnoses are due to a doctor not having the information they need (that is available elsewhere).