Technology advances in everything--EXCEPT OUR OWN HEALTHCARE IT SYSTEMS? WHAT?

After reading the two articles, my sentiments about our healthcare system falls somewhere inbetween the supporters and the opponents. While I do agree that we have to cut down many of our budget costs, I do not agree with Dr. Garson's take in the CNN article. He said, "But any money that is spent on a patient that doesn't improve the outcome is a waste." My concern is how can improving outcome truly be measured when it comes to long-term impact? It is really hard to make value judgments to what improves outcome, especially when it comes to preventative care.

Quality care to me means patients feeling happy about their experiences when they see their doctor or when they stay in the hospital. Quality care doesn't necessarily just mean improving outcome because someone can come out of a hospital feelilng better physically, but they might not be happy emotionally or fiscally even, which may negatively affect their health (and outcome) later on. However, I do agree that we need to cut costs.

The main problem with our healthcare system is its inefficiency in terms of a poor infrastructure and high administrative costs. How can we be spending so much on certain technologies (like treating heart attacks), while forgetting to apply that same technology to our IT systems? Why can't we apply that technology right now on standardizing insurance claim forms? Why can't we apply that technology towards making it mandatory to have electronic health records and drug entry? We have that technology, and we need to spend some money now to save later. By computerizing everything, it allows us to save money on mistakes of ordering extra tests and such.