PACS Hits 90% Penetration - NOT!!!

Ms. PACS: There is something going on at the Guinness Centre in Dublin, and its not research. I hate to be a cynic, but when there is a flashing neon light that says “The Sky Is Falling!” You think, ludicrous, right? Unless, of course, it’s 1980 and you are within a stones throw of the mouth of Mount St. Helen’s.

So, I had to bring this to your attention PACSman. I saw a headline on an industry web site that announced, and quite officially I might add, that the PACS market penetration in the U.S. healthcare space is almost at 90%. Since you tend to keep your finger on the pulse of the PACS market, I wanted to fact check this startling report with you before joining the rest of the herd, blindly believing everything I read, and heading out to pasture.

If this were true, it is a sobering reality that would close the doors on more than 90% of the PACS vendors. So 90% is a very dubious figure in my sheepish eyes. Might this be one point we can agree on?

While you're thinking about it, pass me the bottle Mister Jones.

PACSman: Ay, pass me the Irish Whisky cuz someone’s been drinking again!!!

I just read the aforementioned press release where the Irish research firm who calls itself “a leading source for international market research and market data” indeed indicated that their research has found PACS has 90% market penetration in the U.S….Now unless they are endowed like John Bobbit in his post-Lorena days no one has come close to achieving that degree of penetration in the U.S. PACS marketplace…What’s funny is that PACS is even less embraced in Europe that in the US – the site of this publisher’s headquarters. So who’s been hitting the corner pub and is it the whisky that’s doin’ ya or the Guinness… The editor of one U.S. publication that reported their release I know is laughing like the rest of us since he issued this caveat at the end of the release – Editor’s Note: This report’s findings must be limited to large hospitals and academic medical centers within the U.S., as our knowledge about the market would reflect much less penetration — especially within smaller hospitals, diagnostic imaging centers, cardiology practices and physician offices. So true, JB, so true…

There are so many errors from this company in this report that it defies logic. Their own excerpt starts out “During the past 35 years, ultrasound and nuclear medicine were introduced into clinical medicine...” Methinks someone should read on the history of ultrasound
(http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history1.html is an excellent start). A quick search will show them that ultrasound was tested in medicine in the late 40’s and used clinically since the early 50’s. And according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) web site, nuclear medicine has been around since the mid 40’s as well. Let’s see – 2008 minus 35 equals……yeah, early 70’s for sure….40’s, 50’s , 70’s, hey it’s all just numbers, right, so pass me that number this way please (what are they smoking in Ireland?) The report also noted “X-ray morphed from analog films to digital, and virtually all medical images became soft files on the electronic networks…” Virtually all? Quick, someone call the CR and DR manufacturers and even digitizer vendors and let them know that they can pull their shingles in now because everything is already in soft copy form…

I also love how they define a PACS (or PACSs as they call it). “A PACS network typically consists of a central server that stores a database containing the images connected to one or more clients via a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN) that provides or utilizes the images. This allows remote viewing and diagnosis…” Last time I checked, the modalities provided the images, not the central server…and…let’s see….we have the picture…and we also have the communications…but wait!! Where’s the archive? Oops…it’s missing in action from their “Statement of Report”…Never mind….PCS it is!! I’ve also never heard CT, MR, NM, US and PET referred to as an “imaging instrument” and the last time I checked a mammogram was what a mammography device produced, not the unit itself. This report is fraught with silly errors like these….

The overview indicates the author is an M.D. with a specialty in clinical radiology, while the senior editor a doctoral-level clinical scientist with a PhD in biochemistry. I’m impressed — NOT. If they interviewed “senior managers from major company players” plus conducted literature searches and discussed this with “professionals in the imaging marketplace” how come I wasn’t included? Or my good buddy the Dalai? Or PACS luminaries like Dave Clunie, Elliot Siegel, Paul Chang and others? Huh? Huh? I didn’t get a free copy so I have to assume I’m not in it (major bummer), but I sure as hell am not going to pay 1497 euros (about US$2,008) for the electronic version or 2957 euros (about US$3,967) for the “enterprise edition” to find out if I’m cited or not.

It’s also apparent that they have been drinking their own Kool-Aid for way too long since the “primary sources” of the studies come from “hundreds of database tables and many comprehensive multi-client research projects and Sector Snapshots that we publish annually…" Can you say rehashed information? More Kool-Aid please, Reverend Jones….thank you…

I, and 90% of this market, buyers and sellers alike, will tell you right now that there is no way PACS is 90% penetrated in the U.S. because if it is, someone is seriously missing out on the action…

The best and most accurate part of this study seems to the disclaimer itself that reads “The information set forth in this study was obtained from sources we believe to be reliable but we do not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information contained herein or the results obtained by the use of such information.” I wonder if they will let me borrow that verbiage when working with my own clients….after all, I’m a bargain compared to these guys...and my information slightly more accurate as well.….