CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealthcare cost, quality, practicesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

The economics of diagnostic safety

Open access
Slawomirski, Luke, Kelly, David, de Bienassis, Katherine, Kallas, Kadri-Ann, Klazinga, Niek·2025·OECD Health Working Papers
DOI 10.1787/fc61057a-en
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Diagnosis is complex and iterative, therefore liable to error in accurately and timely identifying underlying health problems, and communicating these to patients. Up to 15% of diagnoses are estimated to be inaccurate, delayed or wrong. Diagnostic errors negatively impact patient outcomes and increase use of healthcare resources. The direct financial burden of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis combined is estimated to be 17.5% of total healthcare expenditure, or 1.8% of GDP in a typical OECD country where one tenth of GDP is spent on health care. Reducing diagnostic error has the potential for large cost savings through improvements in healthcare efficiency and reductions in patient harm. Halving rates of diagnostic error could lead to savings of 8% of healthcare expenditure. This report 1) defines the scope of diagnostic error, 2) illustrates the burden of diagnostic error in commonly diagnosed conditions, 3) estimates the direct costs of diagnostic error, and 4) provides policy options to improve diagnostic safety.

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 · 10.1787/fc61057a-en

Cites

0 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?

  • The socioeconomic burden of diagnostic errors is estimated to affect up to 1.8% of GDP in developed economies.

    “While the architectural overhead of agentic orchestration is significant, the socioeconomic burden of diagnostic errors, which is estimated to affect up to 1.8% of GDP in developed economies, provides a strong argument for the “accuracy premium” offered by collaborative designs [55].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    Section 133 estimates the direct cost of diagnostic error at about 1.8% of GDP in a typical OECD country. The citing sentence calls this a socioeconomic burden, but the paper identifies the 1.8% figure as a direct healthcare cost; section 134 says indirect economic costs are difficult to estimate. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent evaluations indicate that structured agentic panels can reduce complex diagnostic expenditures from approximately $7850 to $2397 while significantly increasing specificity over human specialists.

    “Recent evaluations indicate that structured agentic panels can reduce complex diagnostic expenditures from approximately $7850 to $2397 while significantly increasing specificity over human specialists [54,55].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    Sections 222 and 236 discuss possible diagnostic benefits of AI and potential cost savings, but neither reports an evaluation of structured agentic panels. Searches for “agentic panels,” $7,850, $2,397, and specificity relative to human specialists found no passage supporting the claimed results. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In low-risk environments, the marginal gains of multi-agent deliberation do not offset the increased latency, API costs, or computational footprint.

    “In these low-risk environments, the marginal gains do not offset the increased latency, API costs, or computational footprint [41,55].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    Section 14 discusses when the cost of additional diagnostic testing exceeds its benefit, and section 237 says AI’s carbon costs should be considered. Neither addresses multi-agent deliberation in low-risk environments or compares its gains with latency, API costs, and computational footprint. Searches for those terms found no passage making the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Balogh, E., B. Miller and J. Ball (eds.) (2015), Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.17226/21794. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Balogh, E. et al. (2015), "Improving Diagnosis in Health Care", Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, pp. 1-472, https://doi.org/10.17226/21794. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ben-Assuli, O. et al. (2020), "The use of analytic hierarchy process for measuring the complexity of medical diagnosis", Health Informatics Journal, Vol. 26/1, pp. 218-232, https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458218824708/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_14604582188 24708-FIG5.JPEG. · DOI
  4. Cambridge Econometrics (2024), The economic burden of Long COVID in the UK, https://www.camecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-Economic-Burden-of-Long- Covid-in-the-UK_Cambridge-Econometrics_V1.1_March2024.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2025).
  5. de Bienassis, K., A. Llena-Nozal and N. Klazinga (2020), The economics of patient safety Part III: Long-term care: Valuing safety for the long haul, OECD Health Working Paper, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/the-economics-of-patient-safety- part-iii-long-term-care_be07475c-en (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  6. Duncan, C. et al. (2021), "Diagnostic challenges in sepsis", Current Infectious Disease Reports, Vol. 23, pp. 1-14.
  7. Evans, L. et al. (2021), "Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021", Critical care medicine, Vol. 49/11, pp. e1063-e1143.
  8. Gauer, R., D. Forbes and N. Boyer (2020), "Sepsis: diagnosis and management", American family physician, Vol. 101/7, pp. 409-418.
  9. Graber, M. (2013), "The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine", BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 22/Suppl 2, p. ii21, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001615. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ibrahim T, A. (2023), "The Impact of Wearable IoT Devices on Early Disease Detection and Prevention", International Journal of Applied Health Care Analytics, Vol. 8/8, pp. 1-15.
  11. Kapadia, P. et al. (2024), "Development and Implementation of a Digital Quality Measure of Emergency Cancer Diagnosis", Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 42/21, pp. 2506-2515, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.01523. · DOI
  12. Krogsbøll, L., K. Jørgensen and P. Gøtzsche (2019), "General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease", The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2019/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.PUB3. · DOI
  13. Laposata, M. (2022), "DIAGNOSTIC ERROR IN THE UNITED STATES: A SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF A NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE", Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, Vol. 132, p. 194, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9480522/ (accessed on 28 January 2025).
  14. Li, C. et al. (2020), "Mining Misdiagnosis Patterns from Biomedical Literature", AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings, Vol. 2020, p. 360, http:///pmc/articles/PMC7233073/ (accessed on 20 June 2024).
  15. Meyer, N. and H. Prescott (2024), "Sepsis and Septic Shock", New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 391/22, pp. 2133-2146.
  16. Müskens, J. et al. (2021), "Overuse of diagnostic testing in healthcare: a systematic review", BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 31/1, pp. 54-63, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012576. · DOI
  17. Newman-Toker, D. et al. (2024), "Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA", BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 33/2, p. 109, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021- 014130. · DOI
  18. Newman-Toker, D. et al. (2023), "Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA", BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 33/2, pp. 109-120, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021- 014130. · DOI
  19. Newman-Toker, D. et al. (2020), "Rate of diagnostic errors and serious misdiagnosis-related harms for major vascular events, infections, and cancers: toward a national incidence estimate using the "Big Three"", Diagnosis, Vol. 8/1, pp. 67-84, https://doi.org/10.1515/dx- 2019-0104. · DOI
  20. Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
  21. Rudd, K. et al. (2020), "Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study", The Lancet, Vol. 395/10219, pp. 200-211.
  22. Schwartz, L. and S. Woloshin (1999), "Changing disease definitions: implications for disease prevalence. Analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988- 1994", Effective clinical practice : ECP, Vol. 2/2, pp. 76-85, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10538480/ (accessed on 14 January 2025).
  23. Shreffler, J. and M. Huecker (2023), "Diagnostic Testing Accuracy: Sensitivity, Specificity, Predictive Values and Likelihood Ratios", StatPearls, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557491/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  24. Sik, A., K. Jung and W. Gilbert (2025), "Korea's Thyroid-Cancer "Epidemic" -Screening and Overdiagnosis", New England Journal of Medicine, doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1409841, pp. 1765- 1767, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1409841. · DOI
  25. Singer, M. et al. (2016), "The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3)", Jama, Vol. 315/8, pp. 801-810.
  26. Singh, H. et al. (2009), "Missed Opportunities to Initiate Endoscopic Evaluation for Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis", Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology | ACG, Vol. 104/10, https://journals.lww.com/ajg/fulltext/2009/10000/missed_opportunities_to_initiate_endoscopic. 23.aspx.
  27. Singh, H., M. Graber and T. Hofer (2019), "Measures to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Clinical Practice", Journal of Patient Safety, Vol. 15/4, https://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/fulltext/2019/12000/measures_to_improve_diagn ostic_safety_in_clinical.15.aspx.
  28. Singh, H., A. Meyer and E. Thomas (2014), "The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations", BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 23/9, p. 727, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Singh, H. and D. Sittig (2015), "Advancing the science of measurement of diagnostic errors in healthcare: the Safer Dx framework", BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 24/2, pp. 103-110, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003675. · DOI
  30. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, L. (2023), Best practices in cervical screening programmes: Audit of cancers, legal and ethical frameworks, communication, and workforce competencies, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597783/ (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  31. Thomaides-Brears, H. et al. (2022), "Incidence of Complications from Percutaneous Biopsy in Chronic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Vol. 67/7, pp. 3366-3394, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10620-021-07089-W/TABLES/4. · DOI
  32. Van den Berg, M. et al. (2022), "Hospital-related costs of sepsis around the world: A systematic review exploring the economic burden of sepsis", Journal of Critical Care, Vol. 71, p. 154096.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Slawomirski, L., Kelly, D., de Bienassis, K., Kallas, K.-A., & Klazinga, N.
ORCID
Venue
OECD Health Working Papers
Publisher
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
Published
2025-03-28
ISSN
1815-2015 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1787/fc61057a-en
OpenAlex
W4408812066
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 5
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
OECD health working papers (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diagnostic errors, diagnostic safety, misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, health care costs, patient harm, health care expenditure

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