How much does it cost America to maintain physical (paper) medical records?

Digital storage of something as important as medical records would require a lot of hardware, constant upgrades, teams of technicians to make sure it all runs, backup tapes, software licensing, support subscriptions, and security.
It has to be cost prohibitive to upgrade everything all at once.

Everyone is transferring to EMR (electronic medical records). The cost is indeed prohibitive – staff must be hired specifically to scan, assign, and shred, not even to mention all the things Heretic mentioned. However, the transfer is absolutely necessary in order to make the sharing of patient information more streamlined. Monetarily, costs that are eliminated are mostly only storage (most hospitals and large practices rent storage for their paper records). But EMR really do save a lot of time, and very often lead to better care.

@wildpotato If it improves health care, it’s worth the cost.

@wildpotato & @The_Compassionate_Heretic I agree completely with both of you. But I think the most important thing to consider about moving to an EMR is security. The ability for hackers to steal your private medical records is much easier with it being online. So, there must be an extensive security program behind all of this.

Any important records almost always must have a hard copy somewhere.

This would be a sophisticated number that would have to be determined by a consultant or a company that would have to come in, look at the size of the organization, type of practice, determine what the needs are and recommend a product. And then there’s the cost of the product, implementation and licensing . . .

EMRs do save costs and promote efficiencies but there are other factors that need to be added into an overall cost analysis. Some docs/staff have a hard time working with technology and never get up to speed, which creates a backlog and sometimes duplicate entry. Training time can be frustrating, glitches in the system can cause some downtime, and sometimes the EMRs aren’t intuitive or optimized to reduce other office processes like tracking referrals. That being said, they should be the standard for medical care, but I’d say that right now, there really isn’t a perfect product on the market. Many of them are cumbersome and get outdated fairly quickly.

It sounds like you’re either doing a paper, write-up or an assessment and looking for simplified numbers or examples like ”cuts administration costs by ⅓” but unfortunately, they’re not really out there. I’d Google and see if someone else has done a paper that lists rough, rough estimates or if a consultant like ECG has presented on the subject and posted it’s PPT slides.

@SeventhSense Nope. We shred ‘em after scanning.

@figbash PerfectCare and ChartMaker are pretty great. Very few annoying features, and people get trained on them within a few days, mostly. Never seen an older doc try to use it, though.

@wildpotato: I’ve seen a kajillion of them but recently have been working with Allscripts and Epic. I’m amazed at how clunky they are! I’ve heard of the others but never had a chance to play around in them. One thing I always have to keep in mind is that the systems need to work seamlessly with all of the other organizations we work with which means we sort of need to stick with what the big players have.

Our office has been transitioning, but I still hang on to my paper charts, and probably will continue to do so until the system has been proven stable and seamless.

Currently, everything is done on paper, scanned, then shredded (except for my paperwork, which goes on the chart). I find this to be very wasteful.

@SeventhSense: many patients maintain their own records for that reason, so we will give them the originals once they have been scanned; or a photocopy or printout of things already in the system.

Ultimately, a true paperless system is the goal, but it is exhorbitantly expensive, even with government incentives… our group has 8 or 9 offices, 10 or 11 Physicians; 8 Audiologists and many techncians. Coordinating all those different people, places, and types of records – and trying to find a system the Drs all agree on – has got to be a major headache. Sometimes I like being low on the totem pole.

@hearkat I like that your office “allows” the patient to maintain their records. When I was young I went to Bethesda Naval for all of my medical care. I would go to records, pick up my chart and hand carry it to whichever specialty I was going to that day. Everything was in one chart. My father was here visiting me in TN and when he wanted his result of his blood test done the day before at Navy in MD they were able to pull it up at the Navy base here in TN.

I dont know how practical it is to have full charts available electronically, but I think Lab results should be available, even if it is only results from the last 90 days, and basics like allergies to medicines, blood type (although I guess they would always check before giving blood except for O-?), and anything that would be on a medical bracelet that would be important in an emergency.

The savings comes in things like repeat tests. My MIL had several MRI’s because she went to different specialists who each ordered their own. If the information had been available on an electronic medical record, the doctor would have been able to see the results from 1 or 2 weeks prior and not ordered a new one.
There are a lot of times blood tests are repeated, when it isn’t necessary. I have even told doctors before, “I just had that test done by Dr. So and so, couldn’t you get the results from him?”
The answer usually is, “Oh, it’s just easier to run our own.”

@Judi did your MIL tell the doctor she had just had an MRI two weeks ago? I agree docs run blood tests even when you tell them you just had one. Sometimes it is warranted to see where your numbers are now, but a lot of times I think it is pure redundancy.

She is from that old school thought not to question her doctors. She also has some medication compliance issues (Likes those Tylenol 4’s and her cocktail) and often times doesn’t remember that she recently had that test. Other times she’s sharp as a tack. I think she really likes going to doctors though.

@Judi you made me laugh. By the way alcohol and tylenol is a dangerous combination. Not sure if you meant alcohol when you said cocktail? Not sure if you mean Tylenol when you say Tylenol?

Yes, she won’t admit it though. I think she stays alive because she’s just pickled.

Yes tylenol and alcohol? Switch her to aspirin or some other pain reliever. That combination kills your liver, it’s probably right on the label, not sure? You can google it.

Believe me, she knows. It is the codeine that she really wants, and the combination feeds her “need.” I have already fought this battle and have come to a place of acceptance. At her age I can’t change her. Her doctors know and still prescribe it. (maybe the pattern would be clearer if she had electronic medical records.)

@Judi why don’t they just give her some other narcotic? Well, I guess they think the codiene is more harmless than other narcotics (you can still get it without a perscription in some states). I would do the same as you at this point, ignore it.

at one point they even had her on Methodone. At leas she is off of that. I think it’s harder to be a wealthy drug adict than it is to be on the streets. At least n the streets it is harder to maintain denial.

@wildpotato
Can’t be that important. Anything legal always has paper somewhere.