The complexities of trying to save money in the health system are real.  This article points to just a few.  Better technology means higher costs.  Electronic and computer systems mean higher costs.  The bottom line is that patients must bear some of these costs and insurers as well.  Insurers have the most to gain from the placement of high tech systems in doctors offices and hospitals in terms of financial return.  That return needs to be funneled back into the system to underwrite the implementation of these services.  Prevention is also touched upon by this article, but it should be noted that many insurers pay for only limited preventive services, whereas they pay for almost all services received in an emergency room.  No question, all incentives must be realigned . . . jomaxx

Physicians get only about 11 percent of the savings from electronic health records; the real benefit goes mainly to private and public insurers because, for one, they are paying for fewer unnecessary tests, and automated record-handling is a big cost saving for the payers, according to a study by the Center for Technology Leadership, a medical research group. “The doctors bear all the costs, and others reap most of the benefit,” said Dr. David J. Brailer, who was the national health information technology coordinator in the Bush administration from 2004 to 2006. “The incentives are totally awry.” . . . see complete link to article 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/business/businessspecial3/11save.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin