Abstract

Objective

To analyze the budget impact of using the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) in comparison to the screen/film system.

Methods

The budget impact analysis was conducted on the basis of registry data from the Clinics Hospital of the Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. The budget impacts were compared between the PACS, with high- and low-cost PACS architectures, and the screen/film system by considering reference and alternative scenarios over the course of 5 years.

Results

The budget impact associated with the use of PACS was lower than that associated with the use of the screen/film system in all the evaluated scenarios. The low-cost PACS architecture (mini-PACS) had an even lower budget impact, especially in the scenario in which a simulation of lower numbers of medical examinations was performed.

Conclusions

The screen/film system had a high budget impact in all the scenarios evaluated, wherein its costs were higher than the available budget. In contrast, the PACS (high- and low-cost architectures) showed a budget impact that allowed for savings in resources, especially the mini-PACS. Therefore, we recommend the implementation and use of the PACS in health services with any volume of examinations performed.