A big concern is: is the “stick” hard enough so that they prefer to eat the “carrot”? Or is it just one of those “pool noodles”?

In the primary physician office space the $44K “carrot” may not be enough for the perils and headaches of implementing an EMR. Many physicians know this already, especially most of the ones who have attempted in the past to implement one.

In the provider domain maybe the “incentive” appears to me more appealing due to the amount. But lets remember that many providers have consecutively failed to implement EHRs. The only thing they actually implement successfully is the IS infrastructure because billing and income are so dependant on it.

The “Meaningful Use” bar, for the first stage, is being set so low that technology adoption complexities have been minimized. Albeit I realize that public comments will make the outcome different. I’ve made proposals which after public comment have helped to drastically change what was originally intended.

I agree with the title of your post in that “Meaningful Use” is irrelevant to the implementation of EHRs. A pragmatic shift in the clinicians attitude toward technology would be of more help. So would technology being designed according to the clinicians workflow because we all know that a mouse, keyboard, and monitor get in the way of the clinicians routine.

Two cents! I don’t want to make the reply larger than the post!

http://twitter.com/theEHRGuy