Cited by 740Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care

Open access
Wang, Samuel J., Middleton, Blackford, Prosser, Lisa A., Bardon, Christiana G., Spurr, Cynthia D., Carchidi, Patricia J., Kittler, Anne F., Goldszer, Robert C. +4 more·2003·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Electronic medical record systems improve the quality of patient care and decrease medical errors, but their financial effects have not been as well documented. The purpose of this study was to estimate the net financial benefit or cost of implementing electronic medical record systems in primary care. We performed a cost-benefit study to analyze the financial effects of electronic medical record systems in ambulatory primary care settings from the perspective of the health care organization. Data were obtained from studies at our institution and from the published literature. The reference strategy for comparisons was the traditional paper-based medical record. The primary outcome measure was the net financial benefit or cost per primary care physician for a 5-year period. The estimated net benefit from using an electronic medical record for a 5-year period was 86,400 US dollars per provider. Benefits accrue primarily from savings in drug expenditures, improved utilization of radiology tests, better capture of charges, and decreased billing errors. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the model was most sensitive to the proportion of patients whose care was capitated; the net benefit varied from a low of 8400 US dollars to a high of 140,100 US dollars . A five-way sensitivity analysis with the most pessimistic and optimistic assumptions showed results ranging from a 2300 US dollars net cost to a 330,900 US dollars net benefit. Implementation of an electronic medical record system in primary care can result in a positive financial return on investment to the health care organization. The magnitude of the return is sensitive to several key factors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00057-3

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Electronic patient data management is expensive, and hospitals in underprivileged regions might be unable to afford participation in studies requiring it, potentially perpetuating issues of bias and fairness.

    “Electronic patient data management is expensive 20 , and hospitals in underprivileged regions might be unable to afford participation in studies requiring it, potentially perpetuating the aforementioned issues of bias and fairness.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [23]23. Zdon L, Middleton B. Ambulatory electronic medical records implementation cost benefit: An enterprise case study. Healthc Inform Manage and Syst Soc. 1999;4:97-117.
  2. [24]24. Ury A. The business case for an electronic medical record system. Group Pract J. 2000;49:1-6.
  3. [29]29. Spurr CD, Wang SJ, Kuperman GJ, et al. Confirming and delivering the benefits of an ambulatory electronic medical record for an integrated delivery system. TEPR 2001 Conference Proceedings. Newton, Massachusetts: Medical Records Institute; 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, S. J., Middleton, B., Prosser, L. A., Bardon, C. G., Spurr, C. D., Carchidi, P. J., Kittler, A. F., Goldszer, R. C., Fairchild, D. G., Sussman, A. J., Kuperman, G. J., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Samuel J.
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-04
Volume
114
Issue
5
Pages
397-403
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153080225
Cited by
740
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 49
FWCI
60.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
electronic health records, primary care, outpatient care, cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, paper medical records, imaging utilization, billing errors, capitation
MeSH terms
Computers, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Efficiency, Humans, Office Management, Primary Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Drug Costs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review