It is more productive if the person just knows if the procedure is covered because the insurance companies have stable standards and trust the medical providers rather than having it all be JIT decisions based on rules that either constantly shift or are so vague/low trust as to be "you medical person yourself can't decide if this procedure is covered, you have to call us."
And back in the paper days, the staff would pull up the records for the days appointments. ER visits would have less data but normal medical care would be fine.
> if the person just knows if the procedure is covered because the insurance companies have stable standards and trust the medical providers rather than having it all be JIT decisions based on rules that either constantly shift or are so vague/low trust
None those are related to use or lack of use of technology. Those are purely bureaucratic rules setup by insurance carriers.
> And back in the paper days, the staff would pull up the records for the days appointments.
And sometimes those papers would get lost, or maybe they're still sitting in the folder on a door because someone forget to clean them up, or they were in the wrong order so it took the person longer to find the person's name, appointments would shift, etc. etc.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone the productivity advantages of a system of record to a technology focused crowd...
> None those are related to use or lack of use of technology. Those are purely bureaucratic rules setup by insurance carriers.
They are very much related to use of technology, because they are enabled by technology. The degree of bullshit paperwork every white-collar worker has to deal with nowadays is a direct consequence of computers making it possible to make us do that work, and for the recipients to process it.
The benefits of those processes are whatever they are designed to be, but this creates a false image of net productivity, because the costs are now hidden, smeared across everyone's workload, adding to a vague sense of dissatisfaction and low productivity. In contrast, if you tried the same processes few decades ago, it would mean hiring dedicated people on both ends, and the costs - as measured by their salaries - would be clearly visible.
> I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone the productivity advantages of a system of record to a technology focused crowd...
You don't have to. But you're missing the disadvantages of the situation when maintenance of that system of records becomes a job distributed across everyone. It's not the digital recording per se that's the problem, but the fact that everyone is now also their own secretary.
> The degree of bullshit paperwork every white-collar worker has to deal with nowadays is a direct consequence of computers making it possible to make us do that work, and for the recipients to process it.
These are bold claims backed up by little to no data other than your anecdotal observations. Productivity has generally been on a steady upward trend in the US since it was first measured in 1947. My own professional service business, which does require a decent amount of "bullshit paperwork" would not have been possible at the scale it achieved without technology.
> In contrast, if you tried the same processes few decades ago, it would mean hiring dedicated people on both ends, and the costs - as measured by their salaries - would be clearly visible.
Ever seen Mad Men? There was literally a full floor full of human beings typing out bullshit letters on typewriters because computers didn't exist in the era.
> Ever seen Mad Men? There was literally a full floor full of human beings typing out bullshit letters on typewriters because computers didn't exist in the era.
That's my point: those people received salaries for typing out those letters, making the cost of it clearly visible to the business.
So your point is "we visibly saw the cost before, but no longer see the cost now with tech. Therefore we can conclude that the invisible cost now outweighs the visible cost...because ummmm it's not longer visible?"
Part of the opioid crisis caused by basically bribing doctors
Yes I’m well aware that when drug abuse was happening in the “inner cities” where the government looked the other way because it was more concerned with propping up countries during the Cold War, the same people who want to treat drug addiction like a “disease” when it’s happening in “rural America”, it blamed “single mothers” and “lack of morals”.
And back in the paper days, the staff would pull up the records for the days appointments. ER visits would have less data but normal medical care would be fine.