The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said recently that by 2017, consumers and taxpayers will spend more than $4 trillion on health care, accounting for 20% of every dollar spent. According to a story in the Boston Globe, in 2006, individuals and the government spent $2.1 trillion on health care, an average of $7,026 a person, while 2017, health spending will cost an estimated $13,101 a person.
In the face of these huge projected costs, President Bush has reiterated his call in newly proposed legislation for a national inter-operable electronic health record (EHR) system and making electronic personal health records (PHR) available to Medicare beneficiaries. The PHR proposed legislation, according to news reports, could be used as a back door approach to force doctors and hospitals to implement EHRs.
The Bush Administration has consistently viewed EHRs as a critical means for controlling Medicare costs (some in administration believe that EHRs will "save" Medicare), as well as other medical costs that the government pays for. However, if your primary design criterion for a national EHR system is to control costs, then do not be surprised that the quality of patient care is likely to come in a distant second place as a result. This risk and others has not been examined in any detail; at least in comparison to the supposed benefits.
The benefits of EHRs are not unsubstantial, but they shouldn't be seen as magic elixirs. There is serious doubt by many (including me) that EHRs will reduce health care costs as much as expected. As one health care economist told me, "As long as demand for health care outstrips supply, costs are going to continue to increase."
And as the US population continues to age, new medical technology emerges that promises new cures and treatments, and legal liabilities stay the same, to name only a few health care cost drivers, demand and the resultant cost for health care will continue spiraling upward.
