Legal Research

PHRs Projected to Save $21 Billion Annually

The Center for Information Technology Leadership (CITL) recently published its research findings on the value of Personal Health Records (PHRs) and estimated that they could save $21 billion annually in the United States (full report). Their research also indicated that PHRs could result in an annual net value of $19 billion based on a 10 year rollout and a usage rate of 80% of Americans. The study was supported by “unrestricted” funding from the HealthCare Information Management and Systems Society (HIMSS), Google, InterComponent Ware, Inc., Kaiser Permanente, Microsoft Corporation, and Partners HealthCare System (where CITL is based).

CITL studied the financial value of four types of PHR systems: provider-tethered (healthcare delivery organizations that offer PHRs to patients), payer-tethered (healthcare insurance companies that offer PHRs to their subscribers), third-party (aggregators who compile their users’ medical data but who use a manual communication channel), and interoperable systems (regional aggregators of a patient’s medical information who consolidate all of the patient’s information into one record which can then be accessed through automated electronic data exchange anywhere nationally). All of these systems function to provide patient medical information collection and sharing (sharing a patient’s test results and medications), tools for patient self-management of their health issues (for example, how to manage a chronic condition and helpful hints to quit smoking), and healthcare information exchange (online appointment scheduling, prescription renewals, pre-doctor visit questionnaires, and even online doctor “visits”).  The study found that, of the 4 types of PHR systems, interoperable PHRs are the greatest value. This is the investment that will insure the success of the national healthcare system by allowing communication of patient information among various healthcare “stakeholders” (doctors’ offices, hospitals, health insurance providers, and the patient himself). As Blackford Middleton, M.D., and senior author of the report, said in CITL’s press release “PHRs have the potential to dramatically improve efficiencies in our healthcare system”.

The study found that healthcare cost savings would accrue to both payers and providers, with payers seeing the majority of the savings.  (Hmmmmm, would health insurance companies then lower their rates?). Another finding in the study – which I personally find attractive, is the amount of money which could be saved by e-visits to doctors just by decreasing patient travel time. They estimated a savings of 7.6 hours per year, per patient. Thinking about that made me think about how an e-visit would also prevent the spread of a contagious disease by a sick patient who is coughing and sneezing while sitting in his doctor’s waiting room. That reminds me of the one time that I had the flu and knew that I had to see my doctor so that I would get better, but I also worried about how many people in the waiting room that I might infect. And of course, the other side of that have been the times that I have gone to see the doctor when I wasn’t contagious and wondered who had what in the waiting room and what I might catch.  Both of my scenarios would be prevented by an e-visit!

Because I have been fairly negative about PHRs in some of my previous blogs (one example), I thought it was about time to report on the positives, mainly the tremendous cost savings and the improved management of an individual’s health. There are still many barriers to the adoption of PHRs nationwide and there is that old privacy issue which the study also touches on, but I don’t think there can be any doubt of the necessity of a National Health Information Technology system where all Americans have their PHRs online and accessible by all the healthcare professionals nationwide who have a “stake” in that American’s health.

NEWSFLASH: On January 8, President-Elect Obama pledged to have the medical records of all Americans electronic within five years.

Full post as published by Jenkins Webblits on January 12, 2009 (boomark / email).