The following appeared a little while ago:
The Trillion Dollar Conundrum
By David Dranove
In Tuesdays Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pages, physicians from Harvard and University Pennsylvania Medical Schools criticize subsidies for expanding the use of health information technology (HIT). The physicians cite a recent review article that failed to find consistent evidence of cost savings associated with HIT adoption. If true, this is bad news for the health economy, as supporters claim that HIT could cut health spending by as much as $1 trillion over the next decade.
How can something that is so avidly supported by most health policy analysts have such a poor track record in practice? In a new NBER working paper by myself, Avi Goldfarb, Chris Forman, and Shane Greenstein, we label this the Trillion Dollar Conundrum. One explanation may be that most HIT studies examine basic technologies such as clinical data repositories, while most of the buzz about HIT focuses on advanced...
This is the initial part of the post - read more by clicking on the title of the article. David.