Attempts to computerize the clinical process demonstrate very clearly the difference between a human being and a V-8 engine. Another serious problem is that in any human endeavor, one gets more of what one measures. If physicians are being judged by the percentage of patients who have C-sections, or blood transfusions, or aspirin after a heart attack, or a beta blocker in the intensive care unit, he will be treating the patient with one eye on his own clinical profile. This leads to another potential source of corruption. The purported benefits of mandated computerized records are based on untested and implausible assumptions.
Computer technology is undoubtedly useful in many aspects of medical care.
When patients and physicians benefit from such technology, it has been voluntarily purchased by them. Mandatory standards and compulsory usage are likely to be of benefit only to vendors such as the AMA, insurers attempting to improve their underwriting, marketing agents, government oversight agencies, and agencies that intend to control and redistribute resources. Quality will be assured only if quality means compliance. Patient privacy is widely recognized to be an issue. 1999 Strategic Plan and Budget.