Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:24% (Score 4, Insightful) 563

I don't think that the reason for reduced overhead should be entirely attributed to digitalized medical records. You also have to remember that one of the main problems that medical companies don't do this already is liability problems created by HIPPA. Likewise, insurance is a nightmare to work with. These will both continue to be true whether or not records are digitalized.

One problem few people think about with regards to health care is that the U.S. is such a diverse society, you have a lot of different types of needs. In countries with a monoculture, it is much easier to have low overhead and have a one-size-fits-all way of doing things. Also, in other countries, privacy is not so much of an issue. Here, for some reason beyond my understanding, medical records have become almost the equivalent of classified documents in terms of how they are protected. This has probably cost us much more money than whether or not the records are digital.

I think it is _possible_ we could save money with digitization, but not the amount suggested by this post. On the other hand, based on previous experience with medical IT, I think it's possible it could actually lose money in the long run, especially if "being digital" becomes more important than actually solving the communication problem.


Submission + - Adam Bosworth Leaves Google (

johnnyb writes: ""Google has lost the services of Adam Bosworth, a vice president of engineering who was in charge of the company's Google Health project, focused on helping people research medicines, illnesses, treatments and related healthcare topics.""

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!