Health care and techological innovation

Newt Gingrich and Patrick Kennedy have co-authored a New York Times op-ed on the need for the health care sector to embrace the information revolution. [Hey, wasn’t this Catherine Mann’s point in her essay on IT and outsourcing?–ed. Why, I believe it was one of them, yes.] They have some fascinating data:

The archaic information systems of our hospitals and clinics directly affect the quality of care we receive. When you go to a new doctor, the office most likely has little information about you, no ability to track how other providers are treating you, and no systematic way to keep up with scientific breakthroughs that might help you. The results are predictable. For example, approximately 20 percent of medical tests are ordered a second time simply because previous results can’t be found. Research shows that 30 cents of every dollar spent on health care does nothing to make sick people better. That’s $7.4 trillion over the next decade for duplicate tests, preventable errors, unnecessary hospitalizations and other waste…. In addition, most referrals and prescriptions are still written by hand; computerized entry would eliminate errors caused by sloppy handwriting. Computer programs can warn doctors of possible adverse drug and allergy interactions, and remind them of new advances in evidence-based practice guidelines. Patients could also have easier access to their important health information, allowing them to be active participants in their own care. Moreover, in a post-9/11 world, electronic health information networks would allow doctors, hospitals and public health officials to rapidly detect and respond to a bioterrorism attack. Unfortunately, health care providers are famously stingy investors in information technology. The primary reason is that when new technology reduces the duplication, errors and unnecessary care, most of the financial benefits don’t go to the providers who generate the savings, but to insurers and patients. Therefore, widespread adoption of technology will depend in large part on federally organized public-private partnerships. Treasury dollars could help bring providers in a particular part of the country together to map out plans for a regional health information network, and to divide up the costs and the savings fairly between them. Medicare could sweeten the pot by reimbursing providers for money spent to use electronic health records connected to a regional network.

The one thing that Gingrich and Kennedy do not discuss is privacy concerns — although if people are willing to have their financial information computerized, it’s hard to see how health information is qualititatively different.