From a vendor's perspective, Morgan says it's not only important to be receptive to customer input for upgrades but also to act quickly upon their requests.

"Customers want you to take their input, they want to see a reasonable and effective turnaround and they want quality upgrades," he says. "As vendors, we are pushed to do things quicker, to do a higher quality job and still manage all of this input, in our case, not just from the U.S. market but from the global market that we serve."


Today's health care environment demands providers trim costs and use technology to shape the delivery of care into a more efficient process. With a lot on their plates, predictability of cost and ease of staying up-to-date are important to providers when it comes to upgrades, says Morgan.

"Technology has shown that no matter what industry it is, if you don't stay current, you become uncompetitive," he says. "Those providers who invest wisely in the right technologies and the right partnerships with the right companies will find they're going to be more successful."

Comparative effectiveness
Health care reform draws its share of criticism, but the law does strive to empower providers with the necessary information to make the best decisions about their investments, through comparative effectiveness research.

ECRI Institute, a nonprofit research entity and an Evidence-Based Practice Center as designated by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, conducts comparative effectiveness studies and plays a major role in helping providers make the most out of the available data.

"Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and analysis of the evidence on what works best in health care for patients and it's designed to support better decision-making, including purchase decisions about different diagnostic and treatment options," explains Vivian Coates, vice president of information services and health technology assessment, with the organization. "It isn't new but the increased new funding for it and emphasis on it is certainly new."

Coates says that comparative effectiveness principles can be applied to decisions about upgrading equipment as well. She provides the example of upgrading a lower slice CT scanner to a higher one. Evidence shows that it's effective to use a higher slice CT unit to rule out a diagnosis for coronary artery disease in patients with moderate risk for it. If such equipment can help rule out a diagnosis of the disease, then those patients will be able to avoid further exams or hospitalizations, and thus cut down on health care costs. However, the scanner may be inappropriate for asymptomatic patients or those with a high risk for the disease, who'll require immediate catheterization.

More Industry Headlines