In the last year or so, there has been a rabid flurry of attention being paid to health informatics and many proposals abounding on how using better technology and databases can reduce the rising costs of health care. Whether it's the National Health Information Infrastructure (NHII), e-clinical trials, or e-prescribing, they've all been touted as bringing about substantial savings for insurers, health care providers and employers. And done correctly, each of these programs (and the numerous others) each have the potential for changing the economics of health care.
But don't believe the hype ... just yet.
For instance, if you look in Health-IT World News, you see an article on how e-prescribing can increase the use of generics and thus result in savings for insurers. The results of a study by Wellpoint involving doctors in Maine showed a savings of about $562 per doctor (on average) when they used the e-prescribing technology provided by Wellpoint. I just wish the article had more information on the study, including the technology provided to the doctors and what their exact instructions were during the study. Don't get me wrong - I am a huge proponent of using health informatics and am a believe in using technology to help a doctor make the best, most informed choices in conjunction with the patient (I was trained in biomedical engineering - we love more informatics and gadgets). But I'm also a lawyer, so of course I also can have a habit of casting a jaundiced eye at a brief report that touts huge savings without giving more information so another system/health care provider/insurer could tell whether and how it could achieve similar results.
What has to be considered is that they were looking at a single system, with a technology being provided by one company. If the doctors somehow got wind or were told that they were going to be studied on their generic prescriptions, that could bias the results. Also, it's possible that better or more prevalent generic drugs available for prescription in that health system accounted for the increase in generic drugs. Did they take into account name-brand drugs that may have been taken out of circulation? Were other financial incentives put into place at the same time as the doctors were provided with the e-prescription technology that could have translated into concurrent savings?
My point is that the technology will likely greatly help in savings in many ways. But it's not the only way to achieve savings. Without releasing the methodology of these studies, it's difficult to ascertain exactly how much is attributed to the technology alone. If Wellpoint's study does show that due only to having the e-prescribing technology at hand, doctors somehow decided to and did prescribe a generic version of a drug that amounted to an average savings of $562/doctor, that would be fantastic. I'll keep my confetti and horns at the ready ... .
Comments