The reasons that US primary care clinics have not adopted electronic health/medical record applications is because of the economics of doing so. Just the licensing of these applications can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. There are several open source alternatives that carry no license fees. However, the real costs of implementation of these systems include so much more than just licensing. Books such as "Computerization and Going Paperless in Canadian Primary Care" (ISBN-13:978-1857756234) detail these processes and expenses. It can easily take up to 24 months to transition from paper to electronic medical records. This is expensive in terms of not only training but in temporary reduced efficiency.

But, even if a clinic forges ahead with an implementation and they are successfully converting from paper to electronic; who gains? In a 2004 View Point paper by the American College of Medical Informatics (J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:13–19. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M1669.) they identified some primary reasons for the failure of the health information technology market in the US. Two major ones are:

1) Misaligned incentives. Simply, the people being expected to pay for EHR systems are the ones gaining the smallest percentage of pay back. payors and employers have by far the most incentive to see EHRs implemented.

2) Lack of true interoperability standards. In order for payors and employers to gain their maximum benefits, the systems must be able to communicate semantically correct patient information using open standards. In order to be capable of communicating semantically correct information, they must first be able to STORE semantically correct information. I believe that this is a bigger problem than the health informatics community realizes.

Emphasis on the second one.