A Costly Endeavor

Although most large providers, such as Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, have already implemented EHRs, many small medical offices have found it cost-prohibitive.
Dale Magee, former president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, estimated that only 10 percent of small practices use EHRs.
Barry agreed with this figure, and said that two-thirds of hospitals need additional resources to have fully integrated electronic records in place.
“Financial barriers are viewed as having the largest effect on the decisions to implement [electronic records]. The [health] council will be working to alleviate these barriers,” Barry said.

EHR software runs well over $10,000 per doctor, and support can easily cost 15 to 20 percent of that each year, said Magee, whose office has been using EHRs since 2002. Even if a physician’s office has the capital to invest in such software, there is no guarantee that the program won’t be obsolete in a few years, requiring a large, new investment to update it. 
On the flip side, politicians often cite cost savings as one of the main reasons to transition from paper to computer.

But Magee is doubtful.
“I think you do better care [with EHRs], but you’re not going to save money,” Magee said.
Szabo agrees that EHRs won’t produce an immediate savings.  “In the short term it might not make the practice more profitable. It might require [doctors] to change business practices, [resulting in] a period of reduced productivity,” he said. 
Others, including Obama, claim that electronic records will reduce the cost of health care.

Next: Legal, Practical Concerns