In my last post I mentioned medical technology as a fiercely growing area that contributes to overall health care spending. In this post I wanted to look at the pros and cons of evolving medical technology (specifically electronic medical records). On one hand, this technology can make doctors extremely efficient, allow them to share patient data and save money by moving away from paper records; On the other hand the technology itself is expensive to implement, difficult to learn and can take away the "personal" feeling most doctors have with patients.
I have two articles that serve as a good contrast and explore this issue thoroughly. The first is an op-ed piece by Doctor Abraham Verghese about his personal experience with advancing medical technology. Doctor Verghese admits that on occasions he gets so caught up in technology, that it seems there is a "digital patient" and a real patient. He explains that advancing technology is starting to take away from the personal aspect of medicine. The second article is a piece by Steve Lohr about the pros and cons of implementing electronic medical records.
Both articles, although written differently, give a great picture of the trade offs that come with medical technology. As a patient, which kind of medical experience would you prefer? A highly computerized visit that relies on technology for a diagnosis or a more personal visit that relies on doctor-patient interaction and intuition?
No comments:
Post a Comment