Page 11 of 36
Previous Page     Next Page        Smaller fonts | Larger fonts     Go back to the flash version
Pioneers in Healthcare IT

The cost of data processing

By Art Randall

Editor’s Note: The is the ninth installment in our year-long 30th anniversary “Pioneers in Healthcare IT” celebration, featuring articles from past issues of Health Management Technology, formerly called Computers in Hospitals. This article appeared in the May 1985 issue. A.M. (Art) Randall was national sales director, McDonnell Douglas Health Systems, health services division.

O

ne of the strongest characteristics that I have observed of data processing in the hospital industry is the emphasis upon cost rather than results. I have heard statements such as “Our system costs only $1 a patient day,” while at the same time their days in receivables were in the high 80s. I have heard others that chose systems based upon the low bid by the vendor, with little or no attention given to the personnel cost that would accrue. Take, for example, a decision to order and install a new computer, based upon the old saw that it “does more and costs less.” Most of us still cling to the idea that the computer itself is the largest single cost of data processing, while we have, at the same time, seen DP costs rise overall, and the cost of computers continue a decreasing cost slide that has been in existence for the past 20 years. Today, costs other than the machine make up the bulk of DP costs, and in most cases up to 70 percent or 80 percent (people, paper, postage, programs, fl oor space, heating, lighting, security). Now, suppose a new machine that “does more” at 20 percent less is announced. If the total DP current cost is $15,000 per month and the sup- posed machine represents $4,500 of that amount, then

Pioneers Corporate Sponsors

Carestream Health

Sunquest Information Systems Unibased Systems Architecture

Wolters Kluwer Health Ontario Systems

www.healthmgttech.com

the net savings per month is $900, but only 6 percent of the total.

Because it does more, the buyer wants to take advan- tage of that “does-more capability” so that the organiza- tion begins sending people to school to learn the new machine (lost productivity), rewrite some old programs to take advantage of the new technology (thus ceasing new application development), or incurring dual rentals while converting. What usually happens is that another person will be hired to pick up the slack, and the 6 percent savings becomes, as a result, another increase in the total cost of DP, while little has changed except that DP costs more.

Stories like the foregoing are not just found in the in- house environment, they exist all across the board. Take the shared services of a few companies or organizations, the services of any one of which is the result of offering essentially the same system to all of its users. Yet, one will fi nd in the single client base of its user hospitals costs ranging from an effi cient low to a staggeringly ineffi cient high, and performance equally spread.

What makes the difference? In most cases, use of “charged for” extra options that are offered are not individually justifi ed on the same basis as the original system when it was initially purchased and subsequently installed. The same thing happens when the fi rst in- house computer system is rigorously justifi ed and then, through the passage of time, more memory or another tape drive is added, a little at a time, so that while the original machine cost was justifi ed, most of the current system was never justifi ed.

I would like to see computer selection committees concentrate on “What will it save?” rather than “What will it cost?” And to consider the total cost impact of the various options rather than just the cost of the service or the machine offered by the vendor.

I would also like to see every increase in cost, af- ter the initially justifi ed applications are installed, go through the same rigorous justifi cation process as those fi rst applications were subjected. And if the additional options are really not options at all, I’d like to see the vendor taken to task the same way the hospital is taken to task when it has to justify increases in unplanned expenditures.

HMT

HEALTH MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY

April 2010

9
Previous arrowPrevious Page     Next PageNext arrow        Smaller fonts | Larger fonts     Go back to the flash version
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  13  |  14  |  15  |  16  |  17  |  18  |  19  |  20  |  21  |  22  |  23  |  24  |  25  |  26  |  27  |  28  |  29  |  30  |  31  |  32  |  33  |  34  |  35  |  36