What the ComputerWorld article failed to explain is that the federal, and many state governments, require reimbursement bills to be sent in a specific format and have gone through rigorous review. Doing this manually would take days and delay reimbursement by weeks (and subsequently cost more because it would require more manual labor). This is the exact thing that they studies claim is costing money.

However, technology is finally catching up to where this will become cost effective. New auto coding applications speed up the review process. Voice recognition and OCR is finally at the point where doctors dictated notes can be electronically read and used to help code the record. Handheld devices are now powerful enough that doctors can use them instead of paper charts, meaning that coding happens sooner and is more accurate.

Also, EVERY hospital system is different. One of the biggest costs for installing our systems is the customization required to do data interchange between our systems and those already in place at the hospital.

One other thing...when the economy turns south as it has over the last year, hospitals stop buying new "accounting" systems. Money earmarked for that gets routed to patient care.

>http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9141428/Harvard_study_Computers_don_t_save_hospitals_money?taxonomyName=Hardware&taxonomyId=12
>
>http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM10662S200.pdf
>
>Choice quote: "Programmers of the successful systems told Himmelstein that they didn't write manuals or offer training. "If you need a manual, then the system doesn't work. If you need training, the system doesn't work," he said."