New York Times: The Doctor vs. the Moron

A stunning story was published in the New York Times:

December 30, 2010, 10:19 am
The Doctor vs. the Computer

By DANIELLE OFRI, M.D.

Electronic medical records promise efficiency, safety and productivity in the switch from paper to computer. But there are glitches, as a patient of mine recently brought to light.

My patient needs prostate surgery. It is my job, as his internist, to estimate the risks this surgery poses, decide whether he can proceed with the surgery and make recommendations for his medical management before and after the operation.

He is an extremely complicated patient. His hypertension requires three concurrent medications. He’s taking pills for diabetes, but he really should be giving himself insulin injections. His kidneys are wending their way toward dialysis. A few years ago he had a reaction to a diabetes medication that caused congestive heart failure. His aortic valve is narrowed — not severely, but enough to keep me on edge.

Estimating my patient’s surgical risk and planning for his operative care is not a straightforward process.

The complexities are anything but linear and deterministic, and judgment borne of experience is essential. No algorithm will replace this process in my lifetime, I suspect.

After our physical exam, I sit down to write a detailed evaluation, because I want the surgeons and anesthesiologists to fully understand the complexity of his situation.

In medicine, if you don't know your patient and their history, your patient's dead.

As I type away, I feel like I’m doing the right thing, explicating my clinical reasoning rather than just plugging numbers into a formula. I’m midway into a sentence about kidney function when the computer abruptly halts.

I panic for a moment, fearful that the computer has frozen and that I’ve lost all my work — something that happens all too frequently. But I soon realize that this is not the case. Instead, I’ve come up against a word limit.

It turns out that in our electronic medical record system there is a 1,000-character maximum in the “assessment” field. [Brilliant! - ed.] While I’ve been typing, the character number has been counting backward from 1,000, and now I’ve hit zero. The computer will not permit me to say anything more about my patient.

I see no reason for any degree of politeness or sensitivity regarding this mission hostile "feature" of a clinical documentation system. The person(s) who either designed the system this way and/or set constraints such as this were morons - on first principles - for imposing such a limitation.

... In desperation, I call the help desk and voice my concerns. “Well, we can’t have the doctors rambling on forever,” the tech replies.

"We" can't?

Yes, I guess "we", a.k.a. the computer geniuses who've invaded clinical medicine (or more precisely, who've been permitted to invade clinical medicine), a domain they are patently ignorant of, cannot let the doctors "ramble."

Uses up too many electrons - or something.

Case closed.

In a way this story reminds me of capricious, mission hostile IT limitations I heard about ca. 2002 or '03. I was demonstrating the Saudi Arabia-Yale Genetics Research Database (SAYGR) I'd authored in 1993-5 to world-class AIDS researcher Emilio Emini, in my role as Director of Scientific Information Resources, Research Information Systems division, Merck Research Labs where Dr. Emini was employed at that time.

SAYGR by design placed no artificial limitations on the number of descriptors for an entity, nor on the number of user-defined entities (such as lab test results and descriptors of the results) that could be created, even out in the field, by an enduser. Yet I'd developed it with early 1990's relational database technology.

Emini remarked that SAYGR was much more advanced than the database tools he was provided by the research IT dept., which fixed the number of descriptors to five or perhaps ten per item (probably thus avoiding the need to set up relational tables to make the programmer's job easier). This limitation was often insufficient for the needs of his advanced AIDS research. Again, brilliant.

I will add that there are many good jobs awaiting arrogant, bumbling computer fools -- if only they'd be thrown out of the medical arena and replaced with IT personnel of a service mentality, who understand the limitations of lack of clinical knowledge and experience, and the asymmetric responsibilities, obligations and liabilities of clinicians compared to their own banal data processing jobs.

Deciding on lifeboat capacities for the Titanic, gas tank safety measures for the Ford Pinto, fail-safe systems for the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and final launch decisions on the Space Shuttle Challenger in cold weather come to mind.

-- SS

BLOGSCAN - Are electronic medical records a health care cure or a disease?

This doctor writing at Cleveland.com really doesn't like EMR:

... Our practice implemented EMR about three months ago, and it has not been a downhill sleigh ride thus far. Here's the scorecard.

• It saves time. It doesn't.

• It saves money. It hasn't.

• It promotes office flow and efficiency. Hardly.

• It improves staff morale. Are you joking?

• Patients prefer it. None that I know.

• It's been a bonanza for document-scanning companies. Bingo!

What I find most troubling about EMR is that it is "point and click" medicine. It radically disrupts the doctor-patient relationship. Taking the patient's medical history -- the bedrock of doctoring -- is reduced to a sterile data-entry process. Taking the history, the conversation that physicians and patients have had since Hippocrates tended to the sick, is our opportunity to reach out and bond with our patients. During this time, we forge human-to-human connections with patients who are seeking our help. This is the scaffold upon which a sturdy doctor-patient relationship develops. EMR is taking a chainsaw to this structure.

Those who champion the technology are usually not practicing physicians. They are the insurance industry, billing personnel, medical coding specialists, the government, various bean counters and, of course, EMR vendors. Because these folks are not physicians, they do not appreciate how EMR affects doctoring at ground zero in our exam rooms ...

Read the whole thing.

-- SS

Study highlights 'lurking question' of measuring EHR effectiveness: The science in Medical Informatics is dead

The science in Medical Informatics is dead.

I'm not going to even use academic fabric softener in my assertion, e.g., "may be", "appears to be", or "is it?" (as a question) dead.

It's dead.

When HIT experts recommend changing the study goalposts when existing studies don't give results they'd like to see, rather than first and foremost critically and rigorously examining why we're seeing unexpected results, science is dead.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/study-highlights-lurking-question-measuring-ehr-effectiveness

Study highlights 'lurking question' of measuring EHR effectiveness

December 22, 2010 | Molly Merrill, Associate Editor

WASHINGTON – Hospitals' use of electronic health records has had just a limited effect on improving the quality of medical care nationwide, according to a study by the nonprofit RAND Corporation.

The study, published online by the American Journal of Managed Care, is part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that new methods should be developed to measure the impact of health information technology on the quality of hospital care.

[In other words, we're not getting the results we thought and hoped we'd get with "Clinical IT 1.0", so let's alter the study methodologies and endpoints --- rather than using the results we have to identify the causes and improve the technology to see if we can do better with "Clinical IT 2.0."

Further, it's not as if there's no other data on why health IT might not work as hoped - ed.]

Most of the current knowledge about the relationship between health IT and quality comes from a few hospitals that may not be representative, such as large teaching hospitals or medical centers that were among the first to adopt electronic health records.

[This implies "other" "representative" hospitals are either not doing it right, or the technology is ill suited for them and may never work. Which is it? We really need to know before we proceed with hundreds of billions more in this "Grand Experiment" - ed.]

The RAND study is one of the first to look at a broad set of hospitals to examine the impact that adopting electronic health records has had on the quality of care.

The research included 2,021 hospitals – about half the non-federal acute care hospitals nationally. Researchers determined whether each hospital had EHRs and then examined performance across 17 measures of quality for three common illnesses – heart failure, heart attack and pneumonia. The period studied spanned from 2003 to 2007.

The number of hospitals using either a basic or advanced electronic health records rose sharply during the period, from 24 percent in 2003 to nearly 38 percent in 2006.

[How many billions of dollars diverted from patient care needs does that represent? - ed.]

Researchers found that the quality of care provided for the three illnesses generally improved among all types of hospitals studied from 2004 to 2007. The largest increase in quality was seen among patients treated for heart failure at hospitals that maintained basic electronic health records throughout the study period.

However, quality scores improved no faster at hospitals that had newly adopted a basic electronic health record than in hospitals that did not adopt the technology.

[In other words, the improvements or lack thereof had little to do with electronic vs. paper record keeping - ed.]

In addition, at hospitals with newly adopted advanced electronic health records, quality scores for heart attack and heart failure improved significantly less than at hospitals that did not have electronic health records.

[In other words, the clinical IT was probably impairing doctors compared to simpler paper methods and good HIM personnel - ed.]

EHRs had no impact on the quality of care for patients treated for pneumonia.

Researchers say the mixed results may be attributable to the complex nature of healthcare.

[That is likely true, but maybe the mixed results are also -- and even more likely in major part -- due to poorly designed and/or poorly implemented IT - ed.]

Focusing attention on adopting EHRs may divert staff from focusing on other quality improvement efforts.

[That speaks to poor EHR overkill, poor usability, unfitness for purpose, and other issues that may or may not be remediable in short or even long term - ed.]

In addition, performance on existing hospital quality measures may be reaching a ceiling where further improvements in quality are unlikely.

[That speaks to a low ROI or even negative for the hundreds of billions of dollars being diverted to the IT sector - ed.]

"The lurking question has been whether we are examining the right measures to truly test the effectiveness of health information technology," said Spencer S. Jones, the study's lead author and an information scientist at RAND. "Our existing tools are probably not the ones we need going forward to adequately track the nation's investment in health information technology."

["Probably" not the ones we need? How can the authors know this? This is not science, it is speculation. Further, I'd say the scientific imperative before we design "the right measures" to "truly" test the effectiveness of HIT is to understand why the measures we're using now are not showing the desired results, because perhaps they are perfectly adequate and are revealing crucial flaws, overestimations and false assumptions that need to be dealt with, now, not after another round of billions is spent - ed.]

New performance measures that focus on areas where EHRs are expected to improve care should be developed and tested, according to researchers.

[In pharma clinical trials, this is akin to what is known as "changing the study methodologies and endpoints" - a form of manipulating clinical research, usually with the true ultimate endpoint of money - ed.]

For example, EHRs are expected to lower the risk of adverse drug interactions, but existing quality measures do not examine the issue.

[I believe the studies that have been done of CPOE have not been consistently supportive, and in fact show CPOE might create new med errors - ed.]

"With the federal government making such a large investment in this technology, we need to develop a new set of quality measures that can be used to establish the impact of electronic health records on quality," Jones said.

[This is truly putting the cart before the horse as I wrote here. The studies showing the benefit should have long preceded the "large investments" that were decided upon - ed.]

Support for the study was provided by RAND COMPARE (Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Efforts). RAND developed COMPARE to provide objective facts and analysis to inform the dialogue about health policy options. COMPARE is funded by a consortium of individuals, corporations, corporate foundations, private foundations and health system stakeholders.

Other authors of the study are John L. Adams, Eric C. Schneider, Jeanne S. Ringel and Elizabeth A. McGlynn.

The overarching assumption is that the metrics are wrong, not the quality and fitness for purpose of the technology, the 'wrongness' of which is painfully obvious from the aforementioned other literature, e.g., link, link, link, and the many posts at this blog referring to other literature. Are the authors unaware, one might ask? I know they are not. (Or - blinded? That is, could there be external pressures affecting the thought processes? The arguments might not unreasonably be construed to be skewed from that perspective.)

Recognizing the atrocious user experience and mission hostile nature of the technology (link), how disruptive it is (link, link), how poorly implemented it is often by domain amateurs to support financial battles of the payers, not cognitive processes of clinicians, I am amazed there's any signs of improvement at all, not outright deterioration. (That there is not outright deterioration of care displays if anything the results of the hard mental labor and ingenuity of clinicians to work around the technology's deficits.)

I note that the last time RAND looked at such matters there were problems with pro-health IT bias, among other issues (see my Feb. 2009 post "Heartland Institute Research & Commentary: Health Information Technology").

Carl Sagan wrote that science is a candle in the dark in a demon haunted world.

It seems the demons are winning.

-- SS

Why I find the healthcare IT industry so disappointing

At "Background On The 'Ecosystem' of Commercial Healthcare IT" I wrote:

... In reading about HIT difficulties it is important to understand the “ecosystem” of commercial health IT, that is, the identity and nature of the principal constituents and stakeholders, and their interrelationships. Familiarity with this environment is useful in order to place the social and organizational issues affecting HIT diffusion in the proper context.

By implication, I made the case that the commercial HIT ecosystem was far from healthy.

Recently at Healthcare Renewal and at another blog I visit, HISTalk, frequented largely by IT industry workers and officials, I've noted an uptick in comments from anonymous commenters that resort to ad hominem, strawman arguments, or other forms of logical fallacy in a fairly clear cut attempt not to seriously debate the issues but to de-legitimize serious arguments. I generally respond to such comments, but a few have been so debased here that I have simply deleted them.

Here is an example of a duplicitous strawman argument recently posted at the aforementioned other site with regard to my HC Renewal post "21st century EMR experiments: screwing around with people's lives in a broke city, while not having a clue what you're doing":

... Jumping to conspiracy theories about cover-ups whenever there is an IT problem acknowledged by an organization does not really help improve the state of health IT.

I find the sicknesses of the commercial health IT ecosystem very disappointing and, in fact, revolting due to the implications for patients.

Perhaps a little background as to why I feel that way is in order.

Note:

I believe my background is not too dissimilar from the background of many physicians, who have had similar experiences. The following is therefore not so much about me, but about the challenges of medical training and practice in general and the life experiences imparted:

Pre- informatics, while a resident at Abington Memorial Hospital in Pennsylvania and then as a Manager in a regional transit authority’s medical department, I handled situations such as these:

• Being admitting officer in the ED in the busiest night, ever, in the hospital’s history to that time, New Years Eve 1985-6, having to see perhaps a hundred patients and admit ~ 30. The ED staff needed to -- and did -- perform flawlessly after participating in the highly upsetting and depressing, unsuccessful resuscitation effort of a medical colleague shot in the chest in his home (link) around midnight. It was I who performed heart massage on him -- open-chest style -- with my gloved hands after the surgeons on the trauma team cracked his chest;
  

• Running three near-simultaneous cardiac arrests in the ICU’s during family visiting hours, while being trailed by a Mennonite minister-in-training as an observer. Dealing with the patients' crises and their families was not easy and in fact was extremely stressful. The minister-in-training at the end of it all after several hours stated he was amazed at how I and the intern I was overseeing kept our cool during the affair;
  

• Not telling an intern colleague on the telephone whose mother I’d just declared deceased in the MICU that she had died, because his call was coming from his father’s funeral. His father had died a few days before in the CCU right next door, previously healthy but having had an MI from the stress of his wife's condition. (The intern later thanked me for not telling him about his mother's death until after dad's funeral).

• Repairing a malfunctioning GE CT scanner's computer to get it up and running late one Sunday might ca. 1986, which permitted a life-saving CT scan of the head of an unidentified young man brought in in a delirious state. A repairman left near midnight and said it was fixed, but it was not, and service, I was told, was unavailable between midnight and 7 AM Sun-Mon. so he could not be called back. I'm not sure if this was a vendor policy or a contractual issue (either of which would reflect Titanic lifeboat-like stupidity, since people need CT scans 24x7), but due to radiology training and computer expertise I knew what the problem was and fixed it, going above and beyond the call of duty of an internal medicine resident.
  

• Dealing strongly and firmly with militant labor union leaders and drug-troubled vehicle and train operators as Mgr. of Medical Programs and drug testing in a large regional transit authority. I was very firm in my stance about keeping these operators off the street, and getting them help, to protect the public from possible catastrophe. I was threatened more than once, including being threatened with my life, by operators I had to put out of service.

• Standing up to a police officer and a FOP union official regarding what I believed was gross exaggeration of a minor injury, with no objective findings to substantiate the reported symptoms, multiple inconsistent findings on exam (indicative of 'acting'), and ongoing injury-clinic (a.k.a. fraud-factory) hot pack and massage "treatments" for more than a year, to take advantage of the injury compensation system. This type of activity was unfair to truly injured personnel, to the city that had to pay for these activities at the expense of other needed services, and to the taxpayer.
  

Experiences such as this impart a sense of the fragility of life, of responsibility, obligation, and an understanding of the need for critical thinking and serious and uncompromising attitudes where patients are concerned into physicians of good character.

(Somehow, the hospital, pharmaceutical and medical device executives written about at Healthcare Renewal seem to have missed those points in their own life experiences.)

Most serious, critical-thinking physicians thus would find irrational arguments coming from the HIT industry, marketing spin, petty character attacks on those who report on HIT difficulties, and other unpleasantries quite unserious and disappointing. I certainly do.

After all, IT industry personnel in large part went through educations far simpler than that of a physician. They generally have bachelor's or masters' degrees, have had no medical school experience, internships, residencies, postdocs, etc. They have what are essentially comfortable desk jobs, no liability for patient harm, and compared to most physicians, a cakewalk in their professional lives.

On the other hand, as a physician who had such experiences, I’m a serious professional concerned about serious issues that affect people's lives in their time of need.

I expect nothing less from others involved in aspects of healthcare that can be life or death (as my own mother recently experienced via EHR-initiated iatrogenic catastrophe).

From that perspective, I find the commercial HIT ecosystem quite disappointing indeed.

-- SS

Concerns about adoption of Electronic Health Records, as expressed at a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science & Technology

Even within the Medical Informatics community, it is not common to hear major real-world issues that must be faced before national health IT can become a (safe, effective) reality presented candidly.

I therefore found this candid presentation by a fellow Medical Informaticist, Dr. Richard Gibson, refreshing. (Dr. Gibson was in Medical Informatics fellowship training at U. Utah at the same time I was in my postdoctoral fellowship at Yale.) He presented on issues related to standards for the most part, but also presented some serious caveats as I reproduce below. The caveats will sound familiar to readers of this blog.

The head of ONC, Dr. Blumenthal, was present at this meeting. I hope he will heed Dr. Gibson's words on the difficulties of health IT and cease to present clinical IT as a deterministic solution to healthcare's ills, including definitive statements on unknowns or debatable topics, and even false statements such as these (released for political reasons, of course):

In the NEJM:

The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes [actually, may - we do not yet know - ed.] . Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice.


From the HuffPo Investigative Fund:

“We know that every study and every professional consensus process has concluded that electronic health systems strongly and materially improve patient safety. [False- ed.] And we believe that in spreading electronic health records we are going to avoid many types of errors that currently plague the healthcare system,” Blumenthal said when unveiling new regulations in Washington on July 13.

Dr. Gibson's testimony on EHR adoption concerns was as follows:

Medical Informaticist Dr. Richard Gibson on Health IT
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science & Technology
Subcommittee on Technology & Innovation
Sept. 30, 2010
(Full PDF transcription here).

... CONCERNS ABOUT ADOPTION OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

Adoption of EHRs is a Prerequisite for Interoperability

We have an enormous effort still ahead of us. Before going on to the specific standards that are the topic of today's hearing, we need to acknowledge that the standards have relatively little application unless individual healthcare providers have electronic health records in the first place. Most of the more than 400,000 Eligible Professionals still need to acquire an electronic health record, and most of that effort will be in small physician offices. CMS has estimated the five-year cost of acquiring an electronic health record for an eligible professional to be $94,000. EHR incentive plans through Medicare and Medicaid will cover 47 to 67% of that estimated cost. As a general rule, EHRs still do not allow providers to see more patients in a day, spend more quality time with their patients, or guarantee better or more consistent health outcomes for their patients. [This raises the question of what then, exactly, do EHR's do? - ed.] In short, even with the generous EHR incentive program, there still may not be a sufficient financial rationale for individual providers or small practices to invest in electronic health records.

Implementing an EHR is Stressful for the Provider

Implementing electronic health records in small physician offices is not like purchasing a copy machine or a fax machine. In addition to the great capital expense, the EHR is markedly disruptive to both the clinical and administrative functions of the office. Every provider, medical assistant, receptionist, and billing staff member needs to change the way they do their work. Even with excellent training, it usually takes 2-12 months before providers are fully comfortable on their new tools. On a new EHR, each office visit takes longer - this means increased waiting times for patients or a fewer number of patients per day for the provider. It is not uncommon for providers on a new EHR, after a full 8-10 hour day of seeing patients, to finish their charts on the computer at home for three or four hours in the evening [potentially introducing inaccuracy into the record as a result of the long delay between visit and documentation - ed.] Even those providers who believe in the patient care benefits of an EHR are exhausted by the process in the first year. [Do exhausted clinicians make more, or less errors? - ed.]

EHRs Viewed Unfavorably by Many Providers Because of Administrative Documentation

Many providers who do not yet have EHRs in their office have commented to me how much they dislike the output received from many other physician office EHRs or from hospital EHRs. They specifically complain about how many pages these EHR reports require and how difficult it is to find the small bit of useful clinical information within. Upon investigation, most of this low-value verbosity comes from physicians documenting specific history and physical exam findings required to support their billing. Also, as medicolegal requirements ratchet up, clinicians feel a need to document with a date-time stamp every single finding and every single item of data that they have reviewed. The existing cumbersome EHR reports impair the clinical process and can put the patient at risk by making important information obscure. Clinicians criticize the EHR for this clumsy reading even though the cause lies with our current payment and administrative systems, and not the EHR itself [I would challenge this assertion; computers generate reports according to human-created scripts, and scripts could be created to generate clinically meaningful reports - ed.] , which is otherwise widely agreed to be highly legible. [An apropos term is "legible gibberish" and I recently paid almost $1000 for appx. 2,800 pages of it from an Eclipsys system, documenting two and a half weeks of care of my EHR-injured mother. The output was simply awful - ed.] Most clinicians would prefer to go back to simpler charting that more closely reflects their thought process. These EHR changes will need to await payment reform.

IT Professionals with Multiple Skills Needed for EHR Implementation

Another challenge in implementing electronic health records in small provider offices is the lack of technical expertise and support for the office. The providers are busy with a full schedule seeing patients. Medical assistants are putting patients in rooms or they are continuously on the phone with patients. Front office staff members are trying to make appointments and handle incoming calls. The billing staff is overwhelmed with insurance paperwork. Most providers and staff, especially those in small practices, don’t have time to become fluent in the use of the new system, much less become expert in training others to use the system. Typical small physician implementations start two to three months before the expected launch date of the software. All current paper-based workflows need to be examined and re-designed for the new software. This requires analysts who are not only familiar with software but familiar with the healthcare office process. [It also requires competent people with a service attitude, further limiting the pool of available personnel - ed.] Bringing the majority of the 400,000 Eligible Professionals up to speed on an EHR in the next several years will be challenged by a lack of IT implementation professionals.

EHR Technical Requirements Can Be Challenging for Smaller Practices

Small physician practices are already spending 40-60% of their net revenue on overhead. Space in small physician offices is at a premium and providing a physically locked computer space within the physician office is difficult. Physician offices do not typically have the technical expertise to manage the computers in the clinical areas as well as the office computer network and the larger computers that act as servers and tape backup for the EHR software. Hosting provider EHRs on centralized servers supporting multiple practices may address this concern, but many of the currently used office EHRs are not yet ready for this step-up in technology. Many small towns do not have local computer hardware professionals to support physician offices. The Regional Extension Centers (RECs) exist to assist physicians in this context but even with generous funding, the RECs will be challenged to meet the enormous demand in the next several years. [Considering the "wicked" nature of health IT and the organizational and social issues involved, I would say the RECs will be "overwhelmed to the point of paralysis" - ed.]

I agree with nearly all of Dr. Gibson's positions. I feel they are very helpful in terms of clarifying others' understanding of some inconvenient truths about HIT.

I am disappointed, however, that we even need such testimony before Congress to clear up misconceptions and irrational exuberance about EHR's in the year 2010, when these issues became obvious to objective and unconflicted observers many years ago.

The culture of HIT appears stagnant. Unfortunately cultural reform takes far longer than technological reform.

Yet HIT cannot reform medicine until HIT itself and our societal attitudes and approaches to it are reformed. Hopefully this speech will be a part of initiating the needed reform.

-- SS

Heartland Institute Research & Commentary: Health Information Technology

The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank and proponent, has published a Research & Commentary on Health Information Technology. The report is here. From their website:

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization, tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, and founded in Chicago in 1984. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation. Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

I have no affiliations with this group, but shared a list of reference materials I maintain at my educational website on HIT difficulties.

In their report, they point out that fanning the flames of what I call the "irrational exuberance" around HIT was a 2005 RAND Corp. analysis:

As part of the federal government’s economic stimulus package, Congress has authorized spending about $20 billion on health information technology (health IT) and another $1 billion on comparative effectiveness research. These provisions achieved wide bipartisan support in Congress and in the health care industry, based on the hope that the investment will help improve efficiency, cut costs, and result in better care. The reality is likely to be far different.

Proponents of this spending rely heavily on a short RAND Corporation analysis from 2005 that predicted $77 billion in annual savings and improved outcomes. RAND estimated “implementation would cost around $8 billion per year, assuming adoption by 90 percent of hospitals and doctors offices over 15 years.” It said, “The benefits can include dramatic efficiency savings, greatly increased safety, and health benefits.”

Unfortunately, RAND assumed an error-free system that is quickly and enthusiastically adopted by virtually the entire health care system. That might happen, but it is an absolute best-case scenario. Even then, instead of “dramatic savings,” the $77 billion hoped-for savings amounted to a mere 4.5 percent of total costs, placed at $1.7 trillion by RAND.

The assumption of an "error free system" (including smooth and efficient HIT implementations) is a very, very bad assumption indeed. I would have to question the competence and perhaps sanity of anyone who makes such an assumption, about any type of mass societal IT project, let alone a national project in a field as complex as healthcare.

The Heartland Report goes on to observe:

Far more likely is that every penny of the $20 billion will be wasted on systems that don’t work and can never be implemented. That was the outcome of federal attempts to upgrade technology at the IRS, the FBI, and the air traffic control system. And these are all relatively simple enterprises involving single federal agencies. Health IT is vastly more complex and must include hundreds of thousands of private organizations that have invested in legacy systems that work reasonably well and are as varied as there are providers.

These are good points about the IRS, FBI etc. They also base this likelihood on the experience of another country with a far smaller, less complex socialized healthcare system:

This also has been the experience of the United Kingdom, which has been trying to adopt a similar information technology upgrade for its National Health Service (NHS) since 2002. This plan was far less ambitious than the U.S. version, involving merely 30,000 physicians and 300 hospitals, all of whom are already employed by the NHS. Originally estimated to cost 2.3 billion pounds, it is already at 12.7 billion pounds—$18.4 billion, or about as much as provided in the stimulus package for the entire United States. A recent report to Parliament admitted the program is four to five years late and may never be implemented as envisioned. The project has lost two of the four vendors who were working on it, and some of the elements that have been installed are not meeting expectations.

They did not mention that several of the vendor and consultant firms responsible for the problems are American.

They also relate:

This is not to say health IT is a bad idea or that hopes for it are unwarranted. Quite the opposite. The health care system sorely needs better management tools and better application of technology. There is currently a vast amount of entrepreneurial energy, innovation, and money being invested in developing, refining, and marketing the tools the system needs to come into the twenty-first century. The danger is that massive federal intrusion will bring all that innovation to a screeching halt.

I fear that the assessment about the fate of the $20 billion and about innovation is not very far off the mark.

-- SS