There's still a lot of talk about the findings of two separate studies that were announced last week regarding the lack of savings generated by electronic health record systems. Advocates of health IT vociferously defended EHRs and EMRs.

Some believe that true savings and increased quality of care will be achieved when EMRs and EHRs from different healthcare facilities can exchange electronic health data for the same patient the facilities are treating. Health information exchange promotes continuity of care, say, from when a patient leaves a hospital and is now being taken care of by his or her primary care physician. The PCP can access data on what was done to the patient in the hospital and can now develop a comprehensive treatment plan following the acute-care episode. Another instance is when an emergency department physician knows what medications a patient is on when he or she is presented at the ED because the physician can access the patient's medical history that is stored in the PCP's EHR system. Clearly, the ability to access patient data from the health IT systems enables timely treatment and elimination of duplicative tests, medication errors and gaps in care.
 
Now, the hospital would be more efficient, but some would argue that being more efficient means less revenue. That's where payment reform and pay-for-performance initiatives come into play, and both are integral components of healthcare transformation and the success of health IT.
 
Other health IT proponents have questioned how the researchers have measured and assessed health IT benefits, or lack of benefits. They believe that merely having a system in a hospital doesn't mean it's getting used, so measuring its use is rather moot. The underlying argument is really a call to health IT vendors and hospitals. Health IT vendors need to develop user-friendly systems that don't impede workflow but also have functionality that is useful for physicians. That's where you'll get physician adoption. As for hospitals, the leadership needs to ensure that physicians are on board and help them understand the system in order to reap the full benefits.
 
Finally, some proponents in the health information exchange camp believe that EMRs simply don't save money in standalone situations. I simply disagree. There are healthcare systems that have done studies of their own organization and have reaped benefits. If you're looking for benefits on a global basis, we are not there yet. But I believe the industry will one day get there. If you're looking for healthcare systems that have documented savings, they do exist.