on Facebook
on Twitter
on YouTube
Previous Features »What Is the Promise of Health Information Technology?
Figure 1: Cumulative efficiency savings would be five times greater than cumulative adoption costs
Click graph for larger image.
SOURCE: RAND Review, Spring 2009, Vol. 33, No. 1, page 17. As of June 10, 2009: http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2009/
Information technology (IT) has helped other industries lower costs and improve efficiencies. Could IT do the same for U.S. health care? A series of RAND studies has estimated the costs and benefits of health IT and examined standards for IT systems.
- If most hospitals and doctors' offices adopted HIT and used it effectively, the savings from the increased efficiency alone could average over $77 billion per year.
- Health and safety benefits, such as reminders to patients about needed preventive care and screening, could increase the savings while reducing illness and saving lives (see table).
- Overall savings are large compared with costs (see figure 1).
- Adoption of electronic prescribing systems, a core component of health IT, is growing, but barriers remain: for example, prescriptions for control substances can't be submitted electronically, and some standards for prescription data exchange are still evolving.
| Increasing Preventive Services Could Save Lives with Only a Small Increase in Cost | ||
| Service | Annual Cost (in millions) | Deaths Avoided Each Year |
|---|---|---|
| Influenza vaccination | $134-$327 | 5,200-11,700 |
| Pneumonia vaccination | $90 | 15,000-27,000 |
| Breast cancer screening | $1,000-$3,000 | 2,200-6,600 |
| Cervical cancer screening | $152-$456 | 533 |
| Colorectal cancer screening | $1,700-$7,200 | 17,000-38,000 |
| SOURCE: Hillestad R, Bigelow JH, "Health Information Technology: Can HIT Lower Costs and Improve Quality?," RAND Corporation, RB-9136. Note: Assumes 100-percent participation of all persons recommended to receive the service by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This assumption is intended to set an upper bound for potential costs and benefits, not to suggest that 100-percent participation is probable. | ||
Top