The use of PACS implies better patient care, but if that's not enough to convince those who control the purse strings, cost savings generated by PACS should, a leader in the field told attendees at the SCAR meeting.
Cost/benefit analyses now becoming available should make PACS attractive to chief financial officers of enterprises considering implementation, said Dr. Eliot L. Siegel, director of radiology for the VA Maryland Health Care System and chair of the SCAR 2000 meeting.
Siegel said he and his colleagues conducted a survey of CFOs to learn what factors they considered when deciding to buy a PACS. The three most critical factors were the results of a cost/benefit analysis, improved access to images and reports, and a positive effect on staffing and productivity.
Least important factors included the ability to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, state-of-the-art technology, and improved patient or examination scheduling and throughput, he said.
A study conducted at the Baltimore VA, probably the first of its kind, indicated that a PACS could meet the CFOs' concerns.
"In our experience at VA Baltimore, even though we did not start out by seeking cost-savings, on analysis we found that the increased volume of procedures had resulted in offsetting the high costs associated with PACS implementation," Siegel said.
The researchers found that the breakeven point was 36,827 exams per year, after which the cost decreases incrementally as volume increases. The data covered five years ending in 1996. Total cost savings after service costs and depreciation exceed $800,000 per year.
The study also found that the largest cost savings were in improved efficiency for radiologists, accounting for more than 34% of the overall savings. Reduced space resulted in a 27% savings, reduced use of films 14%, and reduced technologist time 11%. Technologist productivity increased more than 40% in the filmless environment.
Other justifications for PACS include improved workflow, easier access to images and reports, fewer personnel, less storage space, and operational efficiencies.
Those who still consider the cost of PACS too high have another option: remote application service providers (ASPs), which supply digital imaging management and storage services on a per-use basis.
"The ASP option allows you to pay as little or as much as you need to use the system," Siegel said. "This way PACS become like another utility option, you pay based totally on your needs."
