Both. It&#x27;s extraordinarily complex. The data entry is highly structured. All the electronic record software I&#x27;ve seen has probably ~100 pages worth of forms, a big subset of which usually need to be filled out for each patient visit.<p>It&#x27;s not being &quot;disrupted&quot; because it&#x27;s extremely capital intensive to enter this market. The requirements seem intractable:<p>- Structured data with very high level of granularity.<p>- Patients often don&#x27;t fit the mold exactly. It&#x27;s hard to classify something that is going on with a patient; there are 68,000 ICD-10 codes.<p>- Data needs to be interoperable with existing and competing systems.<p>- Every hospital has their processes and documentation practices. As a result, most electronic record software is highly customizable, and a company representative is usually on call or on site to continuously customize it.<p>- Software needs extreme backwards compatibility. You need to be able to read records that are tens of years old.<p>- Need to be able to print everything.<p>- Need to meet regulatory requirements and security audits. Regulatory requirements vary by state and country.<p>- Healthcare institutions are inherently conservative with their technology, and for likely good reason. Plus they don&#x27;t upgrade equipment very often. If they just spent $1 billion upgrading their entire IT infrastructure, they&#x27;re not going to consider your startup&#x27;s solutions for awhile.<p>- Patients don&#x27;t like it when their provider is focused on a computer or taking notes instead of on them.<p>- Different UI for each provider (e.g., primary care physician vs. pharmacist vs. radiologist)<p>- Need to communicate with a wide variety of medical hardware that doesn&#x27;t have good standard protocols, and much of which is very old.<p>And on and on...