The Impact of Technology on Business and Clinical Health Care Costs

Linda Botkin

School of Professional Studies

George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

March 3, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

This paper will discuss how business and clinical health care costs have been impacted by advances in technology. It will also discuss the social impact related to these advances. It will seek to answer the questions, “Where health care costs have increased or decreased because of technological advances.” How has our society been impacted by health care technology changes and how will they be impacted in the future?

 


Business and Clinical Technology Definitions

            In order to answer the question about whether technology has increased or decreased health care costs we must define two distinct areas of health care expenses:

                        #1. Business Technology: Frequently referred to as the back office. This technology includes patient record keeping, insurance filling/reimbursements, image data storage and retrieval (such as CT Scans and X-Rays), appointment scheduling/reminder, billing, invoicing and collections.
                        #2.  Clinical Technology: This area is related to software and hardware used to prevent, diagnose, monitor or treat diseases and medical conditions.  Some examples might include newer CT scanners that scan the body at a more molecular level, robotic equipment and software to assist with surgeries, technologies to use less invasive laparoscopic surgeries, and the development of medicines and vaccines to prevent communicable diseases.

Business Technology

            According to Rick Gilkey, executive director of the Center for Health Care Leadership and a professor at the Emory University School of Medicine, (http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1244) the medical industry has been fast to adopt and expand their usage of business software. Technology has replaced manual prepared patient records and laborious filling systems. Technology advances in business software has replaced paper processes with more efficient digital process that allow for patient records to be entered and retained electronically. This has improved office efficiencies and effectiveness by making it easy to retrieve, track and keep patient records up-to-date.  An even bigger advantage is the fact that clinicians spend less time manually entering and updating records and are able to spend more time on actual health care services. Bill collection has become easier to track and follow through. Newer hardware and telecommunications technology makes it possible for clinicians to enter patient data directly into the database as they work directly with patients.

These improvements in software and hardware technologies have made it possible for clinicians to store X-Rays and CT Scans electronically. Additional advantages include the ability for primary physicians and hospitals to upload X-Rays, CT Scans and patient records to specialists or follow-up care providers. This has replaced the antiquated process of handling and filing large X-Rays and CT scans and courier services to deliver important documents to other care providers. Storing these images electronically has also reduced the cost of the expensive equipment and consumable materials necessary for these processes.  Specifically, the cost of silver, an element of the film materials.

 Improvements in security and Internet capabilities now make it possible for health care administrative staff to file insurance reimbursements electronically, business to business (BtoB). This has decreased the amount of staffing, time and paper work required for the insurance reimbursement process.  The main benefit of business technology is the time it saves clinicians so they can perform more medical care and less administrative duties. This provided a clear indication that the advancement of technology for the back-office has greatly reduced medical administrative cost and made numerous efficiencies.  However, on the clinical side the impact has been quite different.

Clinical Technology

According to the Hastings Center, (Callahan, (2008).  “Health care cost, on the clinical level, are on the rise with a rate of 7% per year. If this rate continues then Medicare will be bankrupt in nine years. This will increase the nation’s overall annual health care tab to $4 trillion in 10 years.  New or increased use of old medical technologies contributes to 40-50% of annual health care cost increases. This increase in annual cost is attributed to improvements in vaccines, antibiotics, advanced heart disease care, improved surgical advances, improved cancer treatments, improved disease detection and prevention, angioplasty, joint replacements, and implantable defibrillators.”

A Kaiser Consideration

To understand the impact of technology on cost, it becomes important to understand how technology affects health care costs. The Kaiser foundation published a list of items that provides insight into the actions that affect cost. Their list of items is below, (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2007).

·         “Development of new treatments for previously untreatable terminal conditions, including long-term maintenance therapy for treatment of such diseases as diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and AIDS.

·        Major advances in clinical ability to treat previously untreatable acute conditions, such as coronary artery bypass graft;

·        Development of new procedures for discovering and treating secondary diseases within a disease, such as erythropoietin to treat anemia in dialysis patients;

·        Expansion of the indications for a treatment over time, increasing the patient population to which the treatment is applied;

·        On-going, incremental improvements in existing capabilities, which may improve quality;

·        Clinical progress through major advances or by the cumulative effect of incremental improvements, that extends the scope of medicine to conditions once regarded as beyond its boundaries, such as mental illness and substance abuse.”

Kaiser also included a comprehensive discussion on factors that influence whether a new technology will increase or reduce health care spending.

“Does the new technology supplement existing treatment, or is it a full or partial substitute for current approaches? Do these changes result in higher or lower health spending for each patient treated? In looking at the impact on cost per patient, consideration needs to be given to whether the direct costs of the new technology include any effect on the use or cost of other health care services such as hospital days or physician office visits. A second factor is the level of use that a new technology achieves (i.e., how many times is the new technology used?). Does the new technology extend treatment to a broader population? Examples would be innovations that address previously untreatable illness, diagnose new populations for existing treatments, or extend existing treatments to new conditions. New technologies can also reduce utilization – for example, new screening or diagnosis capacity that allows more targeted treatment. There also are temporal aspects to evaluating the impact of new technologies on costs. Some innovations, such as a new vaccine, may cost more immediately but may lead to savings down the road if the vaccine results in fewer people seeking more expensive treatment. New technologies also can extend life expectancy, which affects both the type and amount of health care that people use in their lifetime. “

Social and Economic Factors

Many social and economic factors influence technology advances.  As with any industry, consumer demand is at the fore front. In the U.S., our society has always been in the lead of medical advancements. Our population expects that research and technology will continually evolve to improve medical procedures, extend our lives and cure diseases. This has always been a priority and expectation. As U.S. citizens, we don’t imagine that the medical industry or our government would put any restrictions on the implementation of new technologies; limiting the number of new technologies due to cost. As in other countries, such as Germany, health care costs are contained by limiting the introduction of new technologies.  This may be something that our country will need to consider in the future.

As health care costs continue to rise the impact on the divide between who does and does not

receive medical care continues to increase.  As costs rise, insurance premiums increase. This has a spiral affect on who can and cannot afford medical care insurance. As insurance premiums increase, large business reduces the amount of insurance coverage it provides or passes on higher premiums to it’s employees. This further increases the divide between who can afford the advantages of new health care technologies and who cannot. Creating a scenario where only the top end of the economic structure can benefit.

Health Care Spending In Comparison to Other Industries

            In 2007 The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation provided an overview of health care spending in comparison to other industries. Once health care and education spending in the U.S. were about equal, health care now far exceeds. The below excerpt, from that article provides a good overview of industry spending in the U.S. (Kaiser, 2007).

“ An estimated $111 billion was spent on U.S. health research in 2005. the largest share was spent by Industry ($61 billion, or 55%), including the pharmaceutical industry ($35 billion, or 31%), the biotechnology industry ($16 billion, or 15%) and the medical technology industry ($10 billion, or 9%). Government spent $40 billion (36%), most of which was spent by the National Institutes of Health ($29 billion, or 26%), followed by other federal government agencies ($9 billion, or 8%), and state and local government ($3 billion, or 2%).Other Organizations (including universities, independent research institutes, voluntary health organizations, and philanthropic foundations) spent $10 billion (9%). About 5.5 cents of every health dollar was spent on health research in 2005, a decrease from 5.8 cents in 2004. It is not known how much of health research was spent specifically on medical technology, though by definition most of the Industry spending ($61 billion) was spent on medical technology. Medical technology industries spent greater shares of research and development as a percent of sales in 2002 than did other U.S. industries: 11.4% for the Medical Devices industry and 12.9% for Drugs and medicine, compared to 5.6% for Telecommunications, 4.1% for Auto, 3.9% for Electrical/Electronics 3.5% for all Companies and 3.1% for Aerospace/Defense.”

If Medicare goes bankrupt, in 9-years, as predicted because of increased health care costs, who will pay for the health care needed for these citizens? Or, will they be left with no health care because of their economic situation?

Extending Life Expectancy

Another factor is the impact of technology on extending life expectancy. Due to the extension of life expectancy patients will spend more on health care over the course of their life than in 1970. This again, is an impact of technology on health care costs.  More people are spending more on health care for a longer period of time. As we approach a time when the majority of our population will be over the age of 50 there becomes the question on whether money should be spent on health care costs or assisted living?  Should we seek to further extend life or improve the quality of life?

 The issue of quality of life versus quantity of life is another area where technology is unthrottled.  Research centers and industries are free agents to develop technologies at will. Since the consumer is the driver of health purchasing there is still a high demand for technologies that extend life.  However, at some point in time we must consider the quality of an extended life.  Should health care dollars be spent on technology to improve the quality of life or to extend the quantity of life?

 

The Future

            As health care costs continue to rise, the void between the “Haves” and the “Have Nots” will continue to increase. As a society, we will need to determine how we want to handle technology, it’s introduction, the cost associated with that advancement. Furthermore, we will need to determine where the best place is to spend our technology dollars (preventive care, quality of life or extended life).

In Conclusion

Technology advancement that occurs to quickly drives up cost. While we all want the advantages of good health care, technology introduced too quickly, drives up cost and impacts how many in our society will be able to take advantage of that health care. We need to come up with a solid plan within our society to target the key most important technology advances and develop a means for implementing them in a cost effective manner so the maximum number of citizens can benefit.


References

Emory School of Medicine, (2009). Retrieved from http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1244

Callahan, Daniel, (2008). Health Care Costs and Medical Technology, in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, ed. Mary Crowley (Garrison, NY:  The Hastings Center, 2008) P. 79-82. Retrieved from http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2178

Barbash, Gabriel I, M.D., MP.P.H. and Glied, Sherry A., Ph. D., (2010) New Technology and Health Care Costs – The Case of Robot-Assisted Surgery, in The New England Journal of Medicine: , August 18, 2010. Retrieved from  //http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006602

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2007). How Change in Medical Technology Affect Health Care Costs, in Kaiser Health News: Snapshots: Health Care Costs. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030807oth.cfm

Mohre PE, Mueller CD, Neumann PJ; (2001) The Impact of Medical Advances on Future Health Care Costs,  Annual Meeting, International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care Meet. 2001; 17: Abstract no. 169. Project HOPE, Bethesda, MD, USA; Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.

Bates, David W. (2002). The Quality case for Information Technology in Healthcare, in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making: copyright 2002, Bates, licensee BioMed Central Ltd.  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/2/7/prepub

 

Dixon, Brian E. (2009). The Stimulating Health Care Improvement Through IT, in American Society for Public Administration: copyright 2002, In Pennsylvania Times, August 2009, Section Health Care, P. 6 and 12.

Jamal, Aziz, McKenzie, Kirsten, Clark, Michele (2009). The Impact of Health Information Technology on the Quality of Medical and Health Care: A Systematic Review, in Health Information Management Journal, Vol 38, No. 3 2009, ISSN: 1833-3583 (PRINT) ISSN 1833-3575 (ONLINE).