Presentation on theme: "REGIONAL/NATIONAL ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Class 4 4 th June 2012."— Presentation transcript:
REGIONAL/NATIONAL ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Class 4 email@example.com 4 th June 2012
CONCEPTS: Electronic Health Records “Media that facilitate transportability of pertinent information concerning patient's illness across varied providers and geographic locations. Some versions include direct linkages to online consumer health information that is relevant to the health conditions and treatments related to a specific patient” PubMed - MeSH, 2010 “Electronically stored and transmitted medical record that contains patient demographics, medical history, lab tests, X-rays, scans, prescription lists, and any other relevant information” Wulsin, L. and Dougherty, A., 2008 Introduction Wulsin, L. and Dougherty, A., Health information technology - Electronic health records: a primer, California State Library, 2008 (http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-013.pdf) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68057286 2
Introduction CONCEPTS: Cost-Benefit Analysis “a method of comparing the cost of a program with its expected benefits in dollars (or other currency); the benefit-to-cost ratio is a measure of total return expected per unit of money spent. This analysis generally excludes consideration of factors that are not measured ultimately in economic terms. Cost effectiveness compares alternative ways to achieve a specific set of results.” (PubMed – MeSH, 1976) http://mavit.kabunzo.com/tag/dolar/ 3
Introduction EHR: Why so delayed? 4 It is generally agreed that EHRs hold great promise for improving healthcare quality and efficiency But healthcare is decades behind other industries dealing with Information Technology adoption There is an urgent need for hospitals to adopt general EHR systems. However, the efforts of government and other EHR advocates have not sufficiently accelerated the diffusion trajectory. Lori T. Peterson et al., Assessing Differences Between Physicians’ Realized and Anticipated Gains from Electronic Health Record Adoption, 2009
Costs and benefits: economic issues Introduction Investment budget Costs versus benefits - Activities - Personnel - Executive management - Human resource and finance - Building - Supplies - Electronic health record - Other operating expenses Cost SavingsIncreased revenue Eliminating costs of a storing paper records Downsizing personnel Government incentives for use health IT Pay-for-performance incentives IT – information technology 5 Dukyong Yoona et al., Adoption of electronic health records in Korean tertiary teaching and general hospitals, 2012, International Journal of Medical Informatics 81 (2012) 196–203
Barriers to adoption of EHRs (e.g. South Korea) 6 Discussion BarriersHospitals with EHRHospitals without EHR The amount of capital needed to purchase and implement the system 53.8%76.3% Uncertainty about return on the investment 33.0%40.0% Concerns about the ongoing cost of maintenance 27.3%36.8% Finding an EHR system that meets the organization’s needs 34.4%35.2% Resistance to implementation from physicians 22.3%30.5% Lack of adequate IT staff 29.1%27.0% Concerns about lack of future support for upgrading and maintaining the system 16.7%23.3% Concerns about “hacking” 12.7%19.2% Lack of interoperable IT systems in the marketplace 13.4%18.0% Concerns about inappropriate disclosure of patient information 9.2%10.9% Lack of capacity to select, contract for, and implement an EHR system 11.1%2.9%
7 Discussion FacilitatorsHospitals with EHRHospitals without EHR Additional reimbursement for the use of EHRs 68.1%62.9% Incentives for the purchase and implementation of an HER system (e.g., tax credits, low-interest loans, grants) 61.4%58.7% Technical assistance for implementation and process change 57.0%31.1% Objective evaluations of EHR capabilities and implementation experiences (“consumer reports” on EHRs) 45.4%34.1% Published lists of certified EHR systems to assure the presence of necessary capabilities and functions 40.6%36.7% Changes in the law to protect physicians from personal liability for “hacking” or for privacy and security breaches 37.1%32.4% Dukyong Yoona et al., Adoption of electronic health records in Korean tertiary teaching and general hospitals, 2012, International Journal of Medical Informatics 81 (2012) 196–203 Facilitators of adoption of EHRs (e.g. South Korea)
http://aep.ist.utl.pt/divulgacao/publicacoes/ Research Questions 8 What is the return per unit of money spent on regional or national EHR systems? Is this system financially supported by the government of each country where it was implemented?
Aim 9 To review the published literature regarding the financial costs and benefits of regional or national Electronic Health Records. Find out which records characteristics are associated to a bigger investment return. Measure the differences relating to the return of investment between all regions. With this, we intend to…
Methods Lucie Rychetnik, Penelope Hawe, Elizabeth Waters, Alexandra Barratt, Michael Frommer. A glossary for evidence based public health. J Epidemiol Community Health2004;58:538-545 doi:10.1136/jech.2003.011585. (17/12/2011) 10 Systematic Review A systematic review is a method of identifying, appraising, and synthesising research evidence. The aim is to evaluate and interpret all available research that is relevant to a particular review question. In a systematic review, the scope (for example, the review question and any sub- questions and/or sub-group analyses) is defined in advance, and the methods to be used at each step are specified. The steps include: a comprehensive search to find all relevant studies; the use of criteria to include or exclude studies; and the application of established standards to appraise study quality.
Methods 11 How did we create the queries? KEY TERMSSYNONYMOUS EHR Electronic Health Record Electronic Medical Record Electronic Patient Record Personal Health Record Personal Medical Record Computer Patient Record Computer Health Record Computer Medical Record Digital Health Record Digital Medical Record Digital Patient Record Economics Fees Funding Financing Cost Make an inventory of synonyms of the key terms of the research
Methods 12 KEY TERMSSYNONYMOUS Cost-benefit analysis Cost-Benefit Analyses Cost Benefit Analysis Cost Effectiveness Cost-Benefit Data Cost Benefit Benefits and Costs Costs and Benefits National National Health Programs National Health Insurance National Health Services RegionalRegional Health Planning How did we create the queries? Combine the terms in the query using Boolean operators.
Methods 13 How did we create the queries? Establish limits on the search Query with LIMITS Subject areas Languages Timespan Limit the search to articles in: English French Limit the search to the timespan: 1994 to 2012 Excluded articles on: Maths Veterinary Sciences History Anthropology Chemistry Physics Architecture Geography Linguistics Religion Zoology
Methods 14 Collecting articles DATABASES 8511312 2199 TOTAL: 4362 Insert queries in three different Databases
Query – PUBMED 15 Methods (("Electronic Health Record*" OR "Electronic Medical Record*" OR "Electronic Patient Record*" OR "Computer* Patient Record*" OR "Computer* Health record*" OR "Computer* Medical Record*" OR "Digital Health Record*" OR "Digital medical record*" OR "Digital patient record*") AND ("Cost-benefit" OR cost OR costs))
Query – ISI WEB OF KNOWLEDGE 16 Methods Topic=((("Electronic Health Record*" OR "Electronic Medical Record*" OR "Electronic Patient Record*" OR "Computer* Patient Record*" OR "Computer* Health record*" OR "Computer* Medical Record*" OR "Digital Health Record*" OR "Digital medical record*" OR "Digital patient record*") AND ("Cost-benefit" OR cost OR costs))) Refined by: [excluding] Subject Areas=( VETERINARY SCIENCES OR HISTORY OR ANTHROPOLOGY OR CHEMISTRY OR PHYSICS OR ARCHITECTURE OR GEOGRAPHY OR LINGUISTICS OR RELIGION OR ZOOLOGY ) AND Languages=( ENGLISH OR UNSPECIFIED OR FRENCH ) Timespan=1994-2012.
Query – SCOPUS 17 Methods (("Electronic Health Record*" OR "Electronic Medical Record*" OR "Electronic Patient Record*" OR "Computer* Patient Record*" OR"Computer* Health record*" OR "Computer* Medical Record*" OR "Digital Health Record*" OR "Digital medical record*" OR "Digital patient record*") AND ("Cost-benefit" OR cost OR costs))) AND (EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "CENG") OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "MATH") OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "PHYS") OREXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "AGRI") OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "MATE") OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "ENVI") OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "ARTS") OREXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "VETE") OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA, "CHEM")) AND (LIMIT-TO(LANGUAGE, "English") OR LIMIT- TO(LANGUAGE, "French")) AND (LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2012) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2011) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2010) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2009) OR LIMIT- TO(PUBYEAR, 2008) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2007) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2006) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2005) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2004) OR LIMIT- TO(PUBYEAR, 2003) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2002) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2001) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 2000) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 1999) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 1998) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 1997) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 1996) OR LIMIT- TO(PUBYEAR, 1995) OR LIMIT-TO(PUBYEAR, 1994))
Collecting the Final Articles – Step by step 18 EXCLUSION CRITERIA OF THE FIRST EXCLUSION 1 st : Not mentioning monetary values/ costs; 2 nd : Refering to a single hospital/institution; 3 rd : Refering to a group of services in a certain hospital. Methods Exclude the repeated articles Exclude the non-real articles (ex: letters, conversations, news) First exclusion by abstract with two revisors INCLUSION CRITERIA OF THE FIRST EXCLUSION 1 st : Mentioning Electronic Health Records; 2 nd : Mentioning Cost-Benefit Analysis; 3 rd : Referring to monetary values / costs; 4 th : Dealing only with regional and/or national aspects.
Methods 19 Exclude the articles from previous years than 2008 Get the full-texts available – search on 7 different databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, B-On, Scopus, Isi Web of Knowledge, AtoZ, EBSCO) Contact the authors to ask for the articles of interest that were not available Second exclusion reading the full-article, according to the same parameters as the first one Extract data from the articles Collecting the Final Articles – Step by step
Methods 20 Selection of the Articles - STEPS Repeated: 1425 Not articles: 316
Variables Country where the system is implemented Date of article publication Institutions involved What type of medical data is integrated User groups Financing agents Cost Savings Costs of initial investment Profit 23 Methods
Countries where the systems were implemented 24 Results
Initial Investment and Cost Savings 30 Results Date of the study Initial Investment ($/per year) Cost savings ($/per year) ∆ (Cost savings–Initial investment) 200960 million 201019 000 million 200977 800 million 201130 000 million 20090.034 – 0.039 million 200919 000 million 20122700 million 20082200 – 2900 million81 000 million78 800 – 83 900 million 201077 000 million 201059.2 million 20100.011 – 0.033 million 201140 – 350 million 201019 200 million
Initial Investment and Cost Savings 31 Results Date of the study Initial Investment ($/per year) Cost savings ($/per year) ∆ (Cost savings–Initial investment) 20090.0464 million 201020 000 million 201132 000 million 201028 000 million81 000 million53 000 million 200931.4 million 20092 -10 million 20100.63 million 2010130 000 million 2011 20 000 million (public hospitals) 30 000 (private payers) 200930 – 40 million 201032 000 million 201017 200 million
32 Conclusions per year. In terms of cost savings, we studied them per year. 24 billion dollarshighest value 77.8 billion dollars The investment from government or other entities was, in mean, 24 billion dollars, being the highest value from the USA, 77.8 billion dollars and the lowest 36500, also from USA (Massachusetts and New York). Our data related to cost savings came from 13 articles that referred values varying from 81 billion dollars to 42000 dollars. 22 billion dollars were saved In mean, 22 billion dollars were saved per year with EHR. With two exceptions (Korea and UK), all of this was related to USA medical institutions.
33 From this point of view, EHR appear as advantageous. However, when compared to the mean of investment, which is 24 billion, we observe that this is not that linear. In terms of profit, the target articles almost didn’t contain this type of information. Just some of them stated that the profit was 11billion, 20-30 billion, 1-2 million or 154,900 per year. Conclusions
One of the main limitations to our project was the lack of relevant information in the final articles selected The access to the full-text of many articles was denied and when asking the authors to provide us their articles, the majority did not answer us The variables related to monetary values, such as initial cost investment, cost savings and profit, did not gathered information in every article 34 Conclusions
35 Conclusion From our systematic review, because the major barriers to adoption of EHRs are financial, we suggest that hospitals in better financial position with regard to liquidity, profitability and human resources efficiency will be more likely to adopt EHRs.
36 References Abraham, S. (2010). Technological trends in health care: electronic health record. The health care manager, 29: 318-23 Adler-Milstein, J. et al. (2011). A Survey of Health Information Exchange Organizations in the United States: Implications for Meaningful Use. Annals of internal medicine, 154: 666-W241. Al Hajeri, A. (2011). Electronic Health Records in Primary Care: Are We Ready? Bahrain Medical Bulletin, 33 Bahensky, J. et al. (2008). Health care information technology in rural America: electronic medical record adoption status in meeting the national agenda. The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 24: 101-5 Bailit, M. and Koller, C. (2009). Using insurance standards and policy levers to build a high performance health system. Issue brief (Commonwealth Fund), 70: 1-12 Balfour D. et al. (2009). Health information technology--results from a roundtable discussion. Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP, 15: 10-7 Behkami, N. et al. (2010). A Business case for HIT Adoption: effects of “meaningful use” EHR financial incentives on clinic revenue. Studies in health technology and informatics, 160(Pt 1): 779-783. Bernd, DL. and Fine, PS. (2011). Electronic medical records: a path forward. Frontiers of health services management, 28: 3-13. Black, A. et al. (2011). The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS medicine, 8 Cherry, B. et al. (2011). Experiences with electronic health records: early adopters in long- term care facilities. Health care management review, 36: 265-74 Dixon, B. et al. (2010). A Framework for evaluating the costs, effort, and value of nationwide health information exchange. Journal of the American medical informatics association, 17: 295-301. Federowicz, M. et al. (2010). A tutorial on activity-based costing of electronic health records. Quality Management in Health Care, 19: 86-89. Furukawa, M. et al. (2010). Electronic medical records and cost efficiency in hospital medical-surgical units. Inquiry: a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing, 47: 110-23 Furukawa, M. et al. (2010). Electronic medical records, nurse staffing, and nurse-sensitive patient outcomes: evidence from California hospitals, 1998-2007. Health services research, 45: 941-62 Gans, D. (2010). Going electronic pays off. New MGMA report links EHRs with higher medical revenue. MGMA connexion / Medical group Management Association, 10: 21-2 Ginn, G. et al. (2011). Hospital financial position and the adoption of electronic health records. Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives, 56: 337-50 Haugen, DK. (2009). A blueprint for 21st century health care: requirements for standard, electronic administrative data. Minnesota medicine, 92: 42-43. Heimly, V. et al. (2010). Diffusion and use of Electronic Health Record Systems in Norway. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 160: 381-385 Himmelstein, D. et al. (2010). Hospital computing and the costs and quality of care: a national study. The American journal of medicine, 123: 40-6 Hollar, D. (2009). Progress along developmental tracks for electronic health records implementation in the United States. Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central, 7 Hussain, A. (2011). Meaningful use of information technology: a local perspective. Annals of internal medicine, 154: 690-2 Jha, A. et al. (2010). A progress report on electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. Health affairs, 29: 1951-1957. Jones, S. et al. Electronic health record adoption and quality improvement in US hospitals. The American journal of managed care, 16: SP64-71 Joseph, M. (2010). Meaningful streamlining. Hybrid practice management/EMR system boosts quality, reduces costs. Modern healthcare, 40: C8 Kumar, S. and Aldrich, K. (2010). Overcoming barriers to electronic medical record (EMR) implementation in the US healthcare system: A comparative study. Health informatics journal, 16: 306-18
37 References Kumar, S. and Bauer, K. (2011). The business case for implementing electronic health records in primary care settings in the United States. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 10: 119-131 Li, K. et al. (2012). Study of the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Electronic Medical Record Systems in General Hospital in China. Journal of medical systems, 1-9 Menachemi, N. and Collum, T. (2011). Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk management and healthcare policy, 4: 47-55. Milstein, A, Darling. (2010). Better U.S. Health Care at Lower Cost. Issues in science and technology, 31-40. Mohapatra, S. (2009). Better healthcare at reduced cost through electronic integration of patient care data. International journal of electronic healthcare, 5: 87-98 Mostashari, F. et al. (2009). A tale of two large community electronic health record extension projects. Health Affairs, 28: 345-356. Murer, C. (2010). Meaningful use rules proposed electronic health record incentives under HITECH act. Rehab management, 23: 32-3 Palacio, C. et al. (2010). Benchmarking electronic medical records initiatives in the US: A conceptual model. Journal of Medical Systems, 34: 273-279. Payne, T. et al. (2011). National-scale clinical information exchange in the United Kingdom: lessons for the United States. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 18: 91-8 Peterson, L. et al. (2011). Assessing differences between physicians' realized and anticipated gains from electronic health record adoption. Journal of Medical Systems, 35: 151-161. Pitcher, E. (2010). CNO Role in the Implementation of an Electronic Health Record. Nurse Leader, 8: 32-35. Police, R. et al. (2011). Adoption and use of health information technology in physician practice organisations: systematic review. Informatics in Primary Care, 18: 245–258. Richardson, C. et al. (2010). Lessons from credit bureaus for improving the market for electronic medical records. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44: 546-556 Song, P. et al. (2011). Exploring the business case for ambulatory electronic health record system adoption. Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives, 56: 169-82. Stanberry, K. (2011). US and global efforts to expand the use of electronic health records. Records Management Journal, 21: 214-224 Swab, J. and Ciotti, V. (2010). What to consider when purchasing an EHR system. Healthcare financial management : journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association, 64: 38-41 Thompson, D. and Fleming, N. (2008). Finding the ROI in EMRs. Healthcare financial management : journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association, 62: 76-81 Thompson, D. et al. (2010). Reducing clinical costs with an EHR. Healthcare financial management : journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association, 64: 106-8 Whittaker, L. et al. (2010). Effect of Implementing a Computerized System for Bone Mineral Density Storage and Report Preparation on Result Turnaround Time and Savings in Cost, Time, and Space. Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, 16:30-5. Yasunaga, H. et al. (2008). Computerizing medical records in Japan. International journal of medical informatics, 77: 708-13 Yoon, D. et al. (2012). Adoption of electronic health records in Korean tertiary teaching and general hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81: 196- 203. Zhivan, N. and Diana M. (2012). U.S. hospital efficiency and adoption of health information technology. Health care management science, 15: 37-47 Zlabek, J. et al. (2011). Early cost and safety benefits of an inpatient electronic health record. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18: 169-172