The RAND Corporation failed to predict the future. In 2005 they did a study (commissioned, in part, by companies that stood to benefit from a certain outcome of the report) that indicated that billions of dollars could be saved by transitioning to electronic health records. Analysis of the transition and current costs seem to show that most of the savings (all?) are not realized.

The future is hard to predict. People are hard to predict. How technology actually gets used (in contrast to how technology is designed to be used or how the creators believe it will be used) is hard to predict.

The reason this is significant it that when the CBO does things like anticipate the costs of things like Obamacare they use analysis like that used by the RAND Corporation. Which means??? They’re usually (always?) wrong. And guess which direction everybody is always wrong? It (whatever “it” is) always costs more.

It always costs more, which is why Senator Joseph Ivy always wants to do less. Less of everything.

-JD Cross

PS: There’s a lot of implicit cronyism in the article linked to above. I haven’t commented on it here (other than the parenthesis in the first sentence). Feel free to comment on it in the “comments” section. Thanks.