I suppose this conversation will always end with us agreeing to disagree. In part that is because we have different personalities and different levels of "risk tolerance", to use an investing term. Many of the arguments for a more robust system center around disaster planning. We have a fairly simple and inexpensive system of onsite/offsite/online back-ups, and a disaster plan that has us up and running in an hour in the event of most eventualities. It is a plan with which I feel completely comfortable, but one which might make Bert shudder and lose sleep. That is not a criticism of either of us, just a reflection of different priorities and comfort levels.
Bert, I think I have to take issue with your statement "I think saying that AC is kind of a DIY program makes no sense." Actually, I find that ironic coming from you, the guy who has been the king of "doing it yourself" from the beginning. Not only do you know your network in and out, you have actually developed FAP and other programs to make AC function better. That is "DIY" from the hardware, software, AND network side. I think that this is a two-edged sword: it is good that AC CAN be DIY for many of us, but it is a barrier to more widespread use of the program. I am hopeful that someone (Indy?) will develop a straightforward, turnkey approach to installing and implementing AC that will not require so much time, energy, and IT knowledge from all of the docs afraid to jump into the EMR pool.
One way that AC differs from the eClinicals, Cerners, etc, of the EMR world is in the LACK of hardware requirements. The first thing most EMR buyers hear (after "$10k per provider to start and $500 a month") is "you need a new server...and operating system...and upgraded clients". They are not told that FIRST- it is an unpleasant surprise that comes later. I like the fact that AC can run just fine on an inexpensive network that is easy to maintain. I think it is a selling point.
