Electronic medical records (EMRs) are like the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. They may represent salvation or a runaway train coming at you full bore.

When it comes to physicians adopting EMR in their practices, the tired clichés (particularly the one about the carrot and stick) tend to get worn out.

The US government holds the stick while medical practitioners ponder the pros and cons of adapting the technology. For those who make the commitment and bite the carrot, government financial incentives can make it all a bit tastier. Ignore the carrot, and you may eventually choke down castor oil in the form of monetary penalties.

The first significant rumblings came in 2004 when President Bush set a 10-year goal to get most Americans a personal electronic health record (EHR). The idea is similar to EMR, but the differences can be vast depending on the level of complexity that practitioners choose.

With the recent signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—otherwise known as the stimulus bill—the Obama administration earmarked $19 billion for the adoption of EMRs. Specifics on how that money will be given and/or awarded are still sketchy at this point, but the hefty amount is more proof that government officials are keen on electronic records.

When Peter J. Polack, MD, FACS, began to run out of physical space for his charts, he decided to heed the heavy hints from government officials and seriously explore the EMR route. It was either that or knock out a wall—"Should we buy or rent more office space, renovate, and/or pay rent to store charts?" asks Polack, an ophthalmologist at Ocala Eye PA, Ocala, Fla. "I had been looking at EMR systems for about 15 years. We looked at the writing on the wall and decided to go with EMRs."

More.

[Source: PSP]