Experts believe many consumers remain skeptical about the inappropriate use of health information stored and accessed electronically.
"Ideally, the government only allows 'covered entities' access to your entire health history, called your 'personal health information'," said Erin Stevenson, a digital health-care consultant at Redwood Medical Consulting in Bayside, Calif. But the law is vague and full of loopholes, he explained.
Yet Stevenson doesn't think consumer skepticism will impede wider use of the technology. In the end, he said, the technology "makes moving around a city, state, or changing doctors much easier," and it allows doctors to make quicker and better informed decisions.
But, as of now, Americans don't seem to appreciate the benefits of having their intimate health details stored in a computer vs. stowed away in file folders scattered across multiple doctors' offices, Taylor said.
"The policy wonks talk very persuasively about all of the improvements in quality that come from having a complete electronic medical record," he observed, but "that case has not really been made effectively to the public."
The survey also revealed regional differences, with more people in the West (35 percent) saying their primary-care doctor uses an electronic medical record than in other regions.
But with less than a tenth of American adults using electronic medical records, "the numbers are still very small," said Taylor, suggesting that the electronic "revolution" in health care is still in its infancy. But the numbers in some cases have doubled, and he expects that trend to accelerate over time.
In an editorial published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. David Blumenthal, now the Obama administration's National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, noted that few providers have even basic electronic health records. Adoption of the technology has been slow,
All rights reserved