Disease Management & Health Outcomes

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Initiatives and Barriers to Adopting Health Information Technology

A US Perspective
  • Henry A. DePhillipsIII
Leading Article

Abstract

In recent years, US healthcare experts have increasingly agreed that the effective application of information technology (IT) can enable the industry to address its three most pressing concerns: an increase in medical errors, rising costs, and the fragmentation of care delivery. While other industries have fully adopted and capitalized on IT to optimize operational efficiencies and customer service delivery, healthcare systems in the US have generally been slow to make a full transition.

Presently, one of the quickest and most efficient ways health systems can begin to benefit from IT is through the implementation of the electronic health record (EHR). This dynamic resource provides key healthcare stakeholders (patients, payers, and providers) with a comprehensive view of current and historical patient data compiled from various sources. It holds tremendous potential for better management of chronic diseases, improving outcomes, and streamlining expenses.

While the EHR has been shown to generate positive results in its limited use so far, its widespread implementation faces several hurdles, most notably cost. Additionally, primary EHR users (payers and providers) often experience initial infrastructure and personnel burdens, along with potential workflow disruptions. Despite this, considerable support for the EHR as an entry point for full-scale IT adoption is mounting in the US with a number of high-level government initiatives.

This article examines the current state of health IT efforts in the US, the barriers to further adoption, and how technology can be, and is being, used to meet major challenges in the US healthcare industry. Although this article exclusively examines the US healthcare system, the author believes that many of the issues and scenarios described herein are universal among healthcare systems worldwide. At the same time, the author acknowledges that, to a great degree, each nation’s healthcare system faces its own unique considerations that may or may not be reflected in or relevant to the information in this article.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Dr DePhillips is an employee of MEDecision Inc., a software, services and clinical content provider who funded the economic benefits study referenced in the review. The author has no conflicts of interest or sources of funding that are directly related to the contents of the review.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuperman GJ, Gibson RF. Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 31–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaushal R, Blumenthal D, Poon E, et al. The costs of a national health information network. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143(3): 165–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates DW. The quality case for information technology in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2002; 2: 7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frist WH. Shattuck Lecture: health care in the 21st century. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(3): 267–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Handler T, Holtmeier R, Metzger, J, et al. HIMSS electronic health record definitional model, Version 1.0: EHR definition, attributes and essential requirements Version 1.0. [online]. Available from URL: http://www.himss.org/content/files/EHRAttributes.pdf [Accessed 2006 Dec 1]
  6. 6.
    Simon JS, Rundall TG, Shortell SM. Drivers of electronic medical record adoption among medical groups. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005; 31(11): 631–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aspden P, Wolcott J, Bootman JL, et al., editors. Preventing medication errors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Washington DC: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2005. National health care expenditures projections: 2005–2015 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2005.pdf [Accessed 2006 Aug 2]
  10. 10.
    Wiley VJ, Daniel GW. An economic evaluation of use of a payer-based electronic health record within an emergency department. Wayne (PA): MEDecision, Inc., 2006 Jul. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 emergency department summary [no. 372]. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2006 Jun 23Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hackbarth G, Milgate K. Using quality incentives to drive physician adoption of health information technology: Medicare should help physicians overcome the barriers to adoption but should not simply pay the bill. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005 Sep–Oct; 24(5): 1147–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EHRs may benefit small practices financially, but only modest gains in quality seen. Healthc Financ Manage 2005 Oct; 59 (10): 126Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baron RJ, Fabens EL, Schiffman M, et al. Electronic health records: just around the corner? Or over the cliff? Ann Intern Med 2005; 143: 222–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amatayakul M, Hodges L. Don’t underestimate the people costs of EHR. Healthc Financ Manage 2006 Aug; 60(8): 130–1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapointe L, Rviard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. CMAJ 2006 May 23; 174(11): 1573–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaroukian MH, Sierra A. Benefiting from ambulatory EHR implementation: solidarity, six sigma, and willingness to strive. J Health Inf Manag 2006 Winter; 20(1): 53–60Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Department of Health and Human Services. Current market barriers and challenges to widespread adoption of health information technology [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/barrierAdpt.html [Accessed 2006 July 29]
  19. 19.
    Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144(10): E12–W18Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bush G. 2004 state of the union address [online]. Available from URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2004 [Accessed 2006 Aug 2]
  21. 21.
    HHS Press Office. HHS awards contracts to advance nationwide interoperable health information technology [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2005pres/20051006a.html [Accessed 2006 Aug 2]
  22. 22.
    H.R. 4859 — 109th Congress: Federal Family Health Information Technology Act of 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4859 [Accessed 2006 Aug 2]
  23. 23.
    Promoting quality and efficient health care in federal government administered or sponsored health care programs [online]. Available from URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/new/releases/2006/08/20060822-2.html [Accessed 2006 Aug 22]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry A. DePhillipsIII
    • 1
  1. 1.MEDecision, Inc.WayneUSA

Personalised recommendations