Health IT Costs and Benefits Database

Health IT Costs and Benefits DatabaseThis database contains literature articles about the costs and/or benefits of health information technology, and is searchable by the user in a variety of ways. It also contains information about how this database was created. This database was developed by Southern California Evidence Based Practice Center - RAND under a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Access the evidence-based practice report developed by RAND, summarizing the conclusions drawn from this database (PDF, 596 KB).

To access the press release click here.


Search Database

This tool is designed to find publications from a literature search on the topic of health information technology. You can search according to the following criteria:

  • HIT Elements
  • IOM Categories
  • Types of Healthcare Organization Settings
  • Study Design
  • Health System HIT Leaders
  • Cost and Benefit Outcomes

Sample Answers to your Health IT Questions

Need a scan of EHR implementation costs? Looking for the latest info on HIE? Learn how to use the Health Information Technology Costs & Benefits Database to answer your most pressing health IT questions. It's simple - and fast.

Project Background

The use of health information technology (HIT) holds tremendous promise in improving the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, quality and safety of medical care delivery in the United States. The realization of these benefits is especially important in the context of reports that show several consecutive years of double-digit increases in healthcare costs.

Barriers and Implementation

All studies initially reviewed were screened for data on barriers to adoption and implementation. For this analysis, qualitative studies that were primarily focused on barriers and studies that collected quantitative data on barriers were included. Studies in which barriers were briefly discussed, but were not a primary focus, were excluded. A primary focus on barriers was identified through reviewer consensus.