even the most brilliant of us
Is George talking about you, or me, Bert?
But seriously.
I know there are people here who agree with what you're saying. They're just not posting about it (tsk,tsk). Contrariwise, the disagreements provide the stimulus to make your points more and more clearly, until even I can understand them!
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but there are a lot of other issues to be considered.
As far as SQL goes, Jon's doing it. It's in process. And, not being an expert, I can only trust that it makes a big difference.
Meanwhile, Jon is also working on creating Health Maintenance and Practice Management features for the program. These features have been long-requested and long-promised.
I have stated many times that my sincere hope all these new capabilities do not compromise AC’s main function, or distract from its main mission, to help the struggling primary care physician whose life sucks.
The appeal of Amazing Charts lies not only in its affordability, but in its simplicity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions (forgive the cliche), and the path to an EMR becoming bloatware is very wide, and most EMR companies are marching right down that path.
I understand that users demand more features, and a lot of these enhancements must happen. But, how do you make something more complex and still retain its simplicity? It’s not impossible, but it’s very, very difficult, which is why most people aren’t doing it.
Add a little more complexity, a little more cost, and you put Amazing Charts on a progressively higher shelf, out of reach of the struggling docs who need it.
My secondary concern is that there are still a lot of areas where the core features of AC need polish, and I don’t want those issues to get overlooked as we begin to work out the details on these secondary features.
As to the two examples you mentioned:
One guy is using T1 technology to deliver Amazing Charts to a much larger group of doctors than it was intended for, and good for him! However, if you "improve" AC to be better for that situation, what about the guy that keeps his whole practice on his laptop, and depends on ultra-low overhead for his cash-only practice?
The other guy spent more on his server than he probably needed to (sorry, Marty!).
