Health care organizations in the United States and their international counterparts often face vastly different challenges when it comes to purchasing and implementing information technology.
The United States has a largely privatized health care system that's supplemented by government-funded programs for low-income and elderly residents. Though the federal government is the country's biggest health claims payer, it has until recently taken a hands-off approach when it comes to I.T. As a result, providers and payers are pretty much on their own when it comes to purchasing information technology.
Many countries, however, have socialized health care systems that are funded completely by the government. Others, like Switzerland, operate "semi-socialized" health care systems. In the Swiss model, each citizen must purchase a basic level of medical care coverage from a private insurance company.
In these models, governments are charged with overseeing and funding virtually the entire spectrum of health care delivery, and as a result play much larger roles in information technology decisions.
Oftentimes they are footing the I.T. bill for provider organizations and calling the shots on what type of information technology will be implemented nationwide. In other cases they heavily subsidize I.T. initiatives, but do require provider organizations to pick up a portion of the tab.
U.S. provider organizations, which often have to scrounge for money to fund I.T. initiatives, might think that having the government picking up the I.T. tab would be the perfect solution to their information technology problems. Not only would it alleviate their funding headaches, it also would ensure that their systems could easily be integrated with similar I.T. at other facilities.
"Because of increased government involvement, there may be more `mass consumption' of I.T. in health care organizations in other countries," says John Kaplan, a partner in the health and life sciences practice at Accenture, a N.Y.-based consulting firm. "Once a government decides to go forward with a technology, international health care organizations often have a greater chance of successfully implementing it because of the coordinated effort."
But some overseas health care organizations have found that relying on the government to choose and pay for information technology does not always work well, Kaplan says.
Pricey new technologies can be sidelined by delays in the government I.T. approval process, and promised funding doesn't always come through. And even if the government eventually approves and offers the new technology, there's no guarantee it will be the exact model or standard that early adopters are using, Kaplan says.
As a result, overseas providers are, like their U.S. brethren, sometimes left to their own I.T. devices. Their experiences provide invaluable lessons for U.S. facilities.
Even if the government is paying for I.T., health care providers must be innovative and find new ways to use information technology, experts say. And while government funding and "free" I.T. help, they don't always address the unique clinical challenges a facility faces.
"In regards to information technology, hospitals worldwide often face the same challenges," Kaplan says. "Money, politics and infrastructure issues still remain. But there are entrepreneurs that are building and testing the `new mousetrap.' The growth of health care information and the ability to share it is becoming the greatest demand on health care providers everywhere. The world is filled with too many pockets of patient information."
Following are examples of how hospitals outside the United States have automated their facilities by going a step-or two-beyond expectations.