HIPAA remains the EMR deterrent?

Dana Blankenhorn of ZDNet recently opined that HIPAA remains the EMR deterrent:

Most of these problems come out of the HIPAA law, but more of them come out of the need for that law. The law is necessary because insurers routinely use health records to raise prices or deny coverage altogether. Employers seeking to limit their own costs share this incentive to pry.

HIPAA was a band-aid around this gaping wound. Almost as soon as the law was passed an arms race began, fueled by lawyers and lobbyists, aimed at getting around the law. Many doctors opted-out of the war, taking advantage of a provision that allowed small practices to stick with paper.

Without HIPAA, and the need for HIPAA, there is no doubt more doctors would be paperless. We might have already gone through several generations of electronic systems, and ironed out many bugs that still exist.

What do you think, is this true?  I've been thinking that lack of a clear ROI has been the main EMR deterrent, and an asymetry between the parties who benefit (patients and physicians) and the parties who have to pay for the systems (hospitals and labs).  HIPAA is definitely a consideration for the implementation of EMR - you might even say it is an issue - but whether it is truly a deterrent remains a matter for debate...