I'll have to disagree. The point of redundancy is to maintain uptime. That degree of resiliency is typically not necessary for a solo provider. If you come down with the flu, it's not like you will be seeing patients that day anyways. So a day of downtime isn't the end of the world for a solo provider. Now if you're someone like Amazon who loses $70,000 per minute of downtime, it's a different story.
The risk of an event causing severe income and productivity loss is no less to a single user than to a large clinic, although the cost per individual provider to guard against it is greater. The total numbers may be different, but not the impact to the individual.
If you're in a group practice, yes it makes sense to a degree to invest redundant solutions. The point of redundancy is to maintain uptime. But like we always say RAID is not backup. The ability to recover is more important than uptime. I see it all the time. Practices that have RAID drives, UPS, etc. but neglect backup. Now when it comes to backups, I will agree that you can never have too many backups. Not in the case of redundancy though. There's a limit to how much each business needs. The amount invested in redundancy should be proportionate with the expected loss of income per unit time. You don't need Amazon level redundancy for a solo provider. If a day of downtime costs you 1000 dollars, I don't see the point in investing 40,000 dollars in redundant equipment.
Also, a 12 hour backup UPS. The only way you could achieve something like is with a battery bank. It would make more sense to have a lower capacity UPS and a generator which can go on for days.
.png "ACUF Donor I")
