Economist: IT is key to better healthcare
David M. Cutler, professor of economics at Harvard University, argues that if we spent more money on healthcare, the system would work better. In his recently published book, Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America's Health Care System, published by Oxford University Press, Cutler describes a medical care system in crisis. Cutler, who served on President Clinton's healthcare task force, applies an economic analysis to show that the key to improving the system is to change the way we organize healthcare.
News/online editor Bernie Monegain asked Cutler what role information technology might play in this reorganization.
"Surgeons make mistakes because people are fallible and computer technology is not used often enough as backup," you have written. So the first question is why computer technology isn't used more often as backup to people - and what will it take to change that? I think the fundamental reason why is that we don't pay well for the use of technology. For example, there is no reimbursement for a physician setting up such a system; all there are is more costs. With all cost and no obvious financial benefit, physicians who feel squeezed now simply cannot make the investment. To do better will require a major restructuring of how we pay for medical care, away from the model of paying for physician visits and being poked and prodded to a model of paying for quality care and better outcomes. You write about a healthcare system in crisis - on many levels - cost, access, etc... Could information technology be applied to solving these crises? How? Medical care is the most information-intensive industry in the economy, but it uses information technology the least. That is very distressing. One clear way that technology could help is to improve the quality of medical care. People don't get medications regularly enough, don't see physicians often enough, and have a hard time interacting with the system because the use of technology is so low. More use of technology might save money in some areas (fewer people needed to do stuff), but this may be offset by providing more care in preventive situations, when it is underused. I don't know that overall costs will change, but quality will certainly improve. What role do you think a national data exchange system could play in improving the quality of healthcare? An enormous role. We can't really have a system where different computer systems don't speak to each other, where data cannot be transferred back and forth, and where we have to worry about what network things are on. Ultimately, we have to standardize. Do you see the establishment of a data exchange system happening over the next five to 10 years? What will it take for a successful launch? I hope so, but it will really take a lot of government involvement, and I haven't seen that from the Bush Administration to date.