My sense is that EHR mandates were colossal screwup. They should have never happened. No matter how good they seem in the ideal, mandating them should have never been the case.
The reason why is because each hospital had a very well-tuned staff with a system that was designed for that hospital, in-house, over years. Implementation of EHRs should have been done the same way, ground-up, on a site-by-site basis, in a way that allowed for more gradual, flexible adoption with complete autonomy by each site. If they wanted to buy into something like EPIC, great. If they wanted to develop something in-house, great. If they wanted to contribute to an open source project, great. That sort of system would have been much better in the long run.
As it happened, EHRs were just sort of slapped on, top down, with the providers being forced to adapt to them rather than vice versa. It was horrible, and a perfect example of government regulations fucking things up. I'm very pro-public sector, nonprofit, etc. but also think that regulations (in terms of restrictive licensing laws, FDA nonsense, things like EHR mandates, etc.) are the unrecognized disease in American healthcare systems.
EHR mandates at each hospital system I or my spouse worked at to resulted in cost overruns of billions of dollars. Those are just two systems in the US, and believe me, neither of those hospital systems--which were very successful, well-run enterprises, without EHRs--would have never implemented them when they did without the mandates.
The most egregiously stupid thing about the mandate is that EHRs would have been implemented in both these hospitals relatively soon anyway, but it would have happened on a much better timeline, in a much more sane way.
