Real World Health Care Blog

Tag Archives: FDA

Truth in Labeling: Your Vending Machine Is about to Guide Your Diet

Vanessa Merta

Vanessa Merta

Does menu labeling cause consumers to make healthier choices? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration thinks so.

A few weeks ago, the FDA finalized two regulations that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated in 2010.  The announcement issued on November 25, 2014 requires calorie information be listed on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants, similar retail food establishments with 20 or more locations and vending machines.

Consumers should begin to notice the difference as soon as next year since restaurants and vending machines need to comply with the law before December 2015.

FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, said that this regulation is an “important step for public health that will help consumers make informed choices for themselves and their families.”

While this federal regulation was announced just a few weeks ago, many restaurants have used self-imposed calorie information guidance on their own for years. The first company to voluntarily post calorie counts in all of their locations was Panera Bread in 2010.  Starbucks and other chains have been labeling calories since April 2008, but only in New York City stores, as required by a NYC law.

While the FDA’s intentions are to improve public health, individuals and groups such as the Center for Consumer Freedoms have raised some concerns.  Do calorie counts on menus actually cause consumers to eat healthier? Will increased information on nutrition hurt revenue for the business? Researchers in many different fields have been looking for the answers.

Stanford Graduate School of Business studied New York City Starbucks and the effects that calorie labeling had on consumer behaviors as well as the impact on revenue.

The study found that customers whose average purchase was over 250 calories decreased by 26 percent. Stanford researchers concluded that posting calorie counts on menu boards does, in fact, affect consumer behavior.

Stanford also concluded that Starbucks revenues were not affected by the calorie-posting requirement. However, for Starbucks stores located within 50 meters of a competitor, calorie-postings led to an increase in Starbucks revenue.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, one of the world’s largest philanthropies devoted to public health, conducted a four-year research review on the effects that menu labeling has on the average consumer.  Over the course of this long-term review, they found that labeling wasn’t only something that the average consumer wanted, but that it reduces the amount of calories per transaction, and in some cases causes restaurants to offer healthier, lower-calorie options.

Opponents to menu labeling such as U.S. House of Representatives Blaine Leutkemeyer (R-Mo.), Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), signed a letter proposing pamphlets with calorie counts be available next to menus, rather than posted.  Both studies said that the consumer rarely seeks out nutrition information outside the point of purchase.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study claimed that customers see menu labels at the point of purchase and those labels increase their awareness of nutritional information, effectively educating the consumer better than a website or pamphlet could.

Do you think this mandate will change your eating habits or do you think that online nutritional information is sufficient now? Let us know how you feel about this new rule in the comments section!

 

Categories: General

What Happens When an Investigational Drug Cures Some Patients, but not Most?

David Sheon

David Sheon

To date, 179,158 clinical studies have been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Though the majority of these trials result in unsuccessful attempts to bring a drug to market, an untold number of lives have been saved or extended as a result of the successes.

But how many lives were saved by drugs that did not meet their clinical endpoint? Recently, the attention of the medical community has been drawn to “exceptional responders.” These are patients who, contrary to expectation, respond extremely well to drugs that are not found to be effective (or even safe) for use in the general patient population studied in a clinical trial.  The study doesn’t meet its endpoints, but a small number of patients thrive.

With the advent of relatively cheap and easy genetic sequencing, researchers are beginning to better understand why exceptional responders do so well on drugs that have little to no benefit for most patients.

In one case, featured recently in an article in The New York Times, a patient has been living four years with a cancer she was told was untreatable, because she responded well to an experimental drug. Of the seven people given the drug, she was the only one who responded. Sequencing her tumor’s genes, the researchers were able to determine that her response was due to the natural presence of a protein that her cancer needed in order to grow.  The experimental drug stops the production of the same protein. Doctors and researchers have been perplexed by these types of cases for years, yet have only recently been able to examine why this is occurring. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute have begun a study to “understand the molecular underpinnings of exceptional responses to treatment.”

Regardless of the science behind it, there is a very real, ethical dilemma raised by the existence of these exceptional responders. If the drug does not get approved, and especially if the company producing the drug  loses investors and goes out of business because the drug trial didn’t meet its endpoints, exceptional responders will have no way of accessing a treatment that could well save their lives just because of an anomalous genetic makeup. There is nothing in place to guarantee that these patients will be able to access their treatments, even if there are no other alternatives.

According to Wayne Pines, President of Regulatory Services and Healthcare at APCO Worldwide and former Associate Commissioner for Public Affairs at the FDA, however, this issue is not so clear-cut.

“There are a lot of factors that go into a decision as to what an individual patient should do.  Each decision has to be individual,” he said. “We must also take into account the fact that clinical trials are essential to determine if a new drug works and is safe, and there are limits to how much of an experimental product can be produced.”

All of this would seem to indicate that a blanketing policy for dealing with individual patients is not where we have to focus. The presence of the exceptional responder makes it difficult to determine a drug’s efficacy, especially when researchers cannot explain the patient’s response.

“If reasonable endpoints have not been met, then the question is whether the drug has the potential to work,” Mr. Pines said. “Again, this is a decision that has to be made on specific facts, not on the basis of a set policy. A general one size fits all answer to these kinds of questions does not work.”

Ultimately, more research must be done on these cases before making decisions about how to deal with them. With recent advances in molecular testing, hopefully the day is near when we can understand what causes a patient to respond exceptionally, and where to go from there.

What do you think? Should there be policies set in place to protect these patients? If not, how can we ensure that patients can access the drugs they need, when they need them? Let us know in the comment section.

Categories: Access to Care, General

Smoking Out Nicotine Addiction: What’s Working in the War on Cigarettes

With CVS Pharmacy’s recent announcement that cigarettes and other tobacco containing products will no longer be sold in its stores, Real World Health Care has been crunching the numbers on the success of anti-tobacco efforts and reviewing recent advances in smoking cessation. Here’s what we’ve found:

  • #1. Smoking still holds the unfortunate distinction of causing more preventable deaths than anything else.
  • 8 million. That’s how many lives have been saved by 50 years of anti-smoking efforts, according to a recent study by researchers from Yale University.

    Jamie Elizabeth Rosen

    Jamie Elizabeth Rosen

  • 19%. That’s the current smoking rate in the U.S., down from a whopping 42% five decades ago when U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry published the first report on the negative health impacts of smoking.
  • 3,000. The number of young people who still try their first cigarette every day. Almost 700 become regular smokers.
  • 7,600. The number of store locations that will no longer sell tobacco products as a result of CVS’s decision. Under the Tobacco Control Act, the Food and Drug Administration cannot mandate what retailers sell, although interestingly it does have the power to mandate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes in addition to advertising restrictions and general standards for tobacco production

Public consciousness, regulation, and education on the harmful effects of tobacco are all factors in the tremendous progress that has been made in saving lives. The World Health Organization’s global recommendations for tobacco control are known as the MPOWER measures and include the following:

WHO_MPOWER

With the efforts of both public and private sector actors, 2014 could be a watershed year for tobacco control in the U.S. In addition to CVS’s tobacco ban, several new initiatives on the part of the government and private industry have already been announced this year that address components of MPOWER:

  • Earlier this month, the FDA launched a new media campaign targeting youth. “We are addressing one of the biggest public health problems in this country and in the world,” FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said. “It’s something the FDA has not really done before in terms of a broad public health campaign of this magnitude but it’s something that we are so pleased to be doing because it matters for health.”
  • Walgreens and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare announced a smoking cessation initiative. Along with resources to help quit smoking, Walgreens’ new Sponsorship to Quit provides smokers with 24/7 tips and tools, celebrations for milestones, a free consultation and other valuable support systems for smokers in their journey to quit. MinuteClinic also provides online tips, tools and facts to help smokers kick their habits.

Have you or anyone you know succeeded in quitting smoking cigarettes or using other tobacco products? Have you seen an effective campaign against tobacco? Post to the comments section to share your impressions of what works.

What’s Getting Lost in the Health Care Debate?

Health care has never been more highly politicized than today.

Last year, it was central to the third longest government shutdown in U.S. history. This week, it consumed a large chunk of President Obama’s State of the Union address. Every day, we are inundated by news of health exchange website defects, insurance policy cancellations, coverage that forces people to switch doctors, and a laundry list of other problems attributed to the Affordable Care Act. On the flip side, advocates complain of the problems that make the U.S. rank among the lowest in health system efficiency among advanced economies and hail the health care law as a ray of hope.

Jamie Elizabeth Rosen

Meanwhile, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that one in four American families struggled to pay medical bills in 2012. Pretty dismal.

But there’s something missing from this barrage of coverage. Incredible advances are being made in health care every day, providing Americans with innovative ways to stay healthy, treat illnesses when they arise, and save money on medical problems. Just this month, a new program was launched to help people on Medicare living with multiple sclerosis afford copays for treatment; the FDA for the first time approved a postnatal test that can help parents identify possible causes of their child’s developmental delay or intellectual disability; and a study published in the Lancet showed that it is possible to train children’s immune systems to become less sensitive to peanuts.

At Real World Health Care, we focus on what is working.

That’s why I am proud to take over this week as editor of Real World Health Care. While much of my professional focus has been on health internationally – advocating for the development of vaccines to prevent tuberculosis, policies that save mothers and infants from dying during childbirth, and the formation of emergency medical systems in places where people have nowhere to turn – I am compelled by the notion that more attention must be focused on solutions that are improving U.S. patient care today. By serving as a central clearinghouse for information about improvements to segments of the U.S. health care system, we hope that our readers and those journalists who get ideas from our blog will be inspired to expand innovations that are working in health care today.

Real World Health Care – only entering its 11th month – already has a reputation for covering solutions to enhance nutrition, prevent diseases, reform medical education, improve hospitals, support patients, fund research, increase treatment adherence, and reduce costs. The blog serves as a resource for policy makers, health systems, research universities, non-profit health organizations, leading biopharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and the nation’s leading health journalists among thousands of others interested in practical and well-researched health care success stories.

We need your help to continue to grow our success. Have an idea for a story or a guest blog? Email me at jrosen@WHITECOATstrategies.com. Want to take part in advancing solutions in health care? Sign up for updates and share stories that inspire you via Twitter at https://twitter.com/RWHCblog. Do you believe in our mission to expedite improvements to our health care system? Consider co-sponsoring the blog while gaining visibility for your organization. We are now followed by over 300 health industry leaders each week, and journalists turn to us for story ideas about the good news on what’s working in our health care system. For more information, email dsheon@WHITECOATstrategies.com.

I look forward to continuing to cut through the political vitriol around health care with inspiring stories of what is keeping Americans healthy and saving lives. Thank you for giving meaning to our work by using this blog as a resource for yours.

Categories: General

Targeted Therapies Open Door to Improved Outcomes and Lower Costs to Treat HCV

As we were reminded on World Hepatitis Day, early detection is critical to turning the tide of this “silent epidemic” that impacts millions. However, strategies to end the deadly effects of viral hepatitis don’t stop there. Personalized treatment is another essential tool that fuels better outcomes for patients with hepatitis C (HCV) while saving money in the long term for the health care system too. 

Paul DeMiglio

Paul DeMiglio

The importance of finding effective therapies for HCV is underscored by the reality that the disease often goes undetected, with an estimated 80 percent of Americans with HCV unaware of their status. Many HCV-positive people show mild to no symptoms, making it more likely for the illness to progress and become more expensive to treat as a result. 

Although safe and effective vaccines are available for hepatitis A and B, none exist for HCV. To help answer this need, Abbott created the fully automated RealTime HCV Genotype II Test – the first FDA-approved genotyping test in the United States for HCV patients – to facilitate targeted diagnosis and treatment that boosts desired outcomes.

This treatment-defining genotyping test empowers physicians to better pinpoint specific strains of HCV, determine which treatment option is best for the patient, and make more informed recommendations about when it should be administered. Available to individuals with chronic HCV, the test is not meant to act as a means to screen the blood prior to diagnosis.

So how does finding the right HCV treatment save money?

Targeted therapies like these are important for diseases like HCV because they reduce the “trial and error” of having to use additional treatments when the initial ones don’t work, saving money and time for patients and providers. Early detection, combined with follow-up care, can prevent patients from developing later stages of hepatitis that can mean more serious long-term conditions that are harder and more expensive to treat.

Treating HCV patients with end-stage liver disease, for example, is 2.5 times higher than treating those with early stage liver disease. Advanced HCV can also escalate to chronic hepatitis infection, a side effect of this being cirrhosis (scarring of the liver and poor liver function) and liver cancer. Treatment for these two conditions (which can include a liver transplant) can cost more than $30,000. Liver cancer treatment can be more than $62,000 for the first year, while the first-year cost of a liver transplant can be more than $267,000.

As more and more patients find themselves unable to afford treatments, HCV is becoming an increasingly larger financial burden on the health care system.

The annual costs of treating HCV in the United States could be up to $9 billion, and over the course of a lifetime the collective cost associated with treatments for chronic HCV is estimated to total $360 billion.

“As we see patients with more advanced liver disease, we see significantly more costs to the system,” says Dr. Stuart Gordon, author of the Henry Ford Study. “The key, therefore, is to treat and cure the infection early to prevent the consequences of more advanced disease and the associated economic burden.”  

Targeted therapies show great promise to improve outcomes while saving time and money by linking patients to the specific treatments they need at earlier points of diagnosis. But what can health systems do to make innovations like the HCV Genotype II Test accessible to more patients and increase the cost-savings benefit on a larger scale?

Companion Diagnostics Target Therapy to the Patients Most Likely to Respond

What cancer patient would want to use trial and error with various chemotherapies when he or she could know first from a diagnostic that one agent in particular would result in the most successful outcome?

David Sheon

David Sheon

A new field has emerged, companion diagnostics, to help predict a patient’s compatibility with chemotherapy or other cancer treatments.  This is a game changer to help ensure drugs are given only to the patients most likely to respond to them. 

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), companion diagnostics already play an important role in determining which therapies are the safest and most effective for a particular patient.  By identifying treatments that work best for specific patients, less money is spent on those that do not work because patients no longer have to endure multiple treatments to find the one that is right for their case. Companion diagnostics, usually created in combination with targeted therapy, not only reduce cost and waste, but also reduce side effects for the patient.

Over the past several years, the FDA has approved the following five companion diagnostics: 

  • Zelboraf and the Cobas Test: The drug Zelboraf specifically treats the melanoma of patients whose tumors express a gene mutation called BRAF V600E. Alberto Gutierrez, Ph.D., Director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said that approval “is a great example of how companion diagnostics can be developed and used to ensure patients are exposed to highly effective, more personalized therapies in a safe manner.”
  • Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit: Developed along with the targeted therapy drug Xalkori for patients with late stage, non-small lung cancer who express the abnormal anaplatic lymphoma kinase gene. The test determines if a patient possesses that gene to ensure that the correct treatment is applied.
  • therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit: For those with colorectal cancer who are determining whether the drug Erbitux is right for them. This provides information about the KRAS gene mutation in patients whose colorectal cancer has spread to other parts of the body. If the test shows that the patient does not have the gene mutation, this demonstrates that Erbitux is the correct choice, but not the right one for those with the gene mutation.
  • EGFR Mutation Test: Administered in conjunction with the targeted therapy drug Tarceva, which detects the epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation in patients with lung cancer. If the patient has the genetic mutation that Tarveca targets, then they are “candidates for receiving Tarceva as first line therapy,” Dr. Gutierrez says. Because this gene is present in approximately 10 percent of patients who have non-small lung cancer, it would go far to help improve the treatment and success rate among these patients.
  • THxID BRAF: Approved alongside two drugs (Tafinlar and Mekinist) – which treat the most dangerous type of skin cancer – this detects the BRAF V600E or V600K gene mutations associated with the disease. If the tumor of the patient contains either of these genes, both drugs are effective. 

Have you – or someone you know – ever been treated with one or more companion diagnostics? What was the experience like and would you recommend it for someone else?

Categories: Cost-Savings

Juvenile Arthritis Awareness Month Underscores Efforts to Identify Causes and Develop Treatments

That’s right. Children get arthritis too. In fact, according to the Arthritis National Research Foundation (ANRF), nearly 300,000 children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with juvenile arthritis (JA) – one of the most common childhood diseases in the country.

Linda Barlow

Linda Barlow 

When Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis (JRA) first shows its symptoms in a child’s body, many parents write off swollen joints and fever as the flu, or think a sudden rash might have occurred from an allergic reaction. The symptoms might even recede slightly before showing up again, sometimes delaying diagnosis. 

Because a child’s immune system is not fully formed until about age 18, JRA can be especially virulent, compromising the body’s ability to fight normal diseases and leaving children open to complications that can adversely affect their eyes, bone growth and more.

Both the Arthritis Foundation and the ANRF are on the forefront of combatting this disease by supporting research into causes and treatments.

The ANRF’s Kelly Award is one example of how the organization dedicates part of its research effort toward treatment of JRA. The $75,000 grant is given annually to a researcher focused solely on JRA treatment and cures. For the past two years, the award went to Dr. Altan Ercan at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, whose work has the potential to provide novel targets for new therapies.

Another example is the Arthritis Foundation’s partnership with the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). Through the partnership, the Foundation is working to create a network of pediatric rheumatologists and a registry of children with the disease, allowing researchers to identify and analyze differences and similarities between patients and their responses to treatment. Ultimately, the registry will help researchers cultivate personalized medicine, the ultimate weapon in battling the disease. The CARRA Registry has been launched at 60 clinical research sites and has enrolled 8,000 patients.

The Arthritis Foundation has also committed to providing more than $1.1 million in funding this year to researchers investigating a wide range of topics, including: 

  • Exploring how environmental and genomic factors might play a role in triggering juvenile arthritis; 
  • Collecting data and evaluating the efficacy of standardized treatment plans; and 
  • Developing and testing a smart phone app to help children cope with pain.

According to the Arthritis Foundation, there is no single test to diagnose JA. A diagnosis is based on a complete medical history and careful medical examination. Evaluation by a specialist and laboratory studies, including blood and urine tests, are often required. Imaging studies including X-rays or MRIs may also be needed to check for signs of joint or organ involvement.

“When joint pain, swelling or stiffness occurs in one or more of your child’s joints for at least six weeks, it’s important not to assume these symptoms are temporary, and to get a proper diagnosis from a pediatric arthritis specialist,” says Arthritis Foundation Vice President of Public Health Policy and Advocacy, Dr. Patience White. “Early medical treatment of juvenile arthritis can prevent serious, permanent damage to your child’s joints and enable her to live an active, full childhood.”  

Management of JA depends on the specific form of the disease but can include:

  • Care by a pediatric rheumatologist.
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to control pain and swelling.
  • Corticosteroids such as prednisone to relieve inflammation, taken either orally or injected into inflamed joints.
  • Biologic Response Modifiers (BRMs), such as anti-TNF drugs to inhibit proteins called cytokines, which promote an inflammatory response. These are injected under the skin or given as an infusion into the vein.
  • Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs such as methotrexate, often used in conjunction with NSAIDs to treat joint inflammation and reduce the risk of bone and cartilage damage.

One promising therapy in the fight against juvenile arthritis has been recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – Actemra (tocilizumab) – from Roche. Used to treat polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), the medicine can be used in children ages 2 and older. It is also approved for the treatment of active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).

How can organizations like the Arthritis Foundation and the ANRF increase awareness that arthritis happens to children, and build support to advance development of research and therapies?

New Drug Delivery Options that Help the Medicine Go Down

David Sheon

David Sheon

The water cooler talk for us at RWHC is frequently about improving treatment adherence (a patient’s ability and willingness to take his or her medicine consistently, as directed).  OK, so we don’t have the most exciting water cooler discussions.  But this happens to be important – for all of us because when patients stay on treatment, they get better faster.  This is almost universally true, regardless of the therapeutic category.

In some cases, improving adherence not only saves the life of the patient, but it can benefit an entire community.  In HIV, for example, taking antiretrovirals not only helps the patient to manage his or her viral load (the amount of HIV circulating in the blood), but it also lowers that patient’s ability to transmit the virus to someone else.

Sometimes, adherence can be improved by using a different delivery system.  This is the first post in a series on how drug delivery helps adherence.

Remember the first time you took a breath strip that dissolved on your tongue? The technology was invented in the 1970s, but only since July 2012 have pharmaceutical companies been able to win marketing approval to put a drug on the strip.  Two products have been cleared by the FDA.

Zuplenz (ondansetron) oral soluble film is an anti-nausea and vomiting product used by cancer patients who experience nausea and vomiting as a result of receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation as well as for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

“We know from market research that patients who are nauseated don’t necessarily like swallowing pills or using suppositories and that sometimes taking pills with water contributes to their nausea,” said John V. Aiken, M. Ed., Vice President, Corporate Operations, Marketing, and Training, Praelia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  “Since launching the product in December 2012, a number of doctors are telling us that their patients prefer the dissolving strip.”

The second drug now available on an oral dissolving strip is Suboxone (Buprenorphine and Naloxone), from Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.  For more information on this product, click here.

If the dosing is standardized and absorption is as good as more typical drug delivery methods, we see only an upside in terms of patient adherence to oral dissolving strips.  Please tell us what you think.  Also, if you know of a new drug delivery option that you’d like to see us cover, let us know!

Saving Green by Going Green

Daniel J. Vukelich, Esq., President, Association of Medical Device Reprocessors

Daniel Vukelich

In August 2012, Forbes ran an article by Richard Crespin entitled, “If Sustainability Costs You More, You’re Doing it Wrong.”  Never before has this been more true for health care providers than it is right now.  In fact, data shows that if hospitals put in place certain green initiatives, they would save a lot more green – to the tune of more than $15 billion over the next 10 years.  In this era of shrinking budgets, escalating health care costs, and the growing problem of medical waste, isn’t it about time that all hospitals explore these sustainable options?

Research from the Commonwealth Fund, with support provided by Health Care Without Harm and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, concluded in their report Can Sustainable Hospitals Help Bend the Health Care Cost Curve? that “the savings achievable through sustainable interventions could exceed $5.4 billion over five years and $15 billion over 10 years.”

One of the initiatives considered was the reprocessing of select “single-use” medical devices (SUDs).  In the study, hospitals contracted with an FDA-regulated medical device reprocessor, which are firms that specialize in collecting medical devices – decontaminating, cleaning, repairing, and remanufacturing the devices for resale back to hospitals.  Extrapolating on the data collected, the researchers estimate that “hospitals’ cost savings over five years was about $57 per procedure and if hospitals nationwide adopted SUD reprocessing, cost savings would be $540 million annually, or $2.7 billion over five years.”

That’s billion with a “b,” it does not require any up-front hospital capital investment to get started, and is proven to provide patients with the same standard of care.  With these reprocessing programs, hospitals are able to extend the life and value of the medical devices they already own, not only dramatically reducing the amount of medical waste hospitals generate, but saving money as well.

The savings associated with reprocessing have been recently bolstered by other sources.  According to Modern Healthcare, the Healthier Hospitals Initiative, comprised of about 700 hospitals and three non-profit organizations (Health Care Without Harm, Practice Greenhealth and the Center for Health Design), found that its members “saved a collective $32 million in 2012 by reprocessing single-use medical devices,” a practice that was highlighted by the Healthier Hospitals Initiative (HHI) in its first milestone report.

HealthLeaders found in the report that “recycling, regulated medical waste reduction, energy management, and single-use device reprocessing were the four HHI Challenge areas with highest participation levels and represented the areas with the fastest financial rewards.”

Just two weeks ago, in an article from Becker’s Hospital Review, Huron Consulting Group issued a briefing entitled, “Ten Overlooked Opportunities for Significant Performance Improvement and Cost Savings.”  The briefing lists reprocessing among the ways hospitals and health systems can save their organizations millions.  Jim Gallas, managing director and Performance Solutions leader at Huron Healthcare, said, “As market pressures on hospitals and health systems continue to grow, a comprehensive yet granular approach to reducing expenses in every possible area creates a tremendous opportunity to make healthcare delivery more efficient, as well as fund the changes that reform is bringing.”

Of the 10 areas for performance improvement at hospitals and health systems, Huron experts identified medical device reprocessing as reducing device costs between 15 and 40 percent for an average 350 bed hospital, which saved $175,000-$315,000 a year.

Last week, Sterilmed, an affiliate of Ethicon-Endo Surgery, Inc. (a Johnson & Johnson company) and Stryker Sustainability Solutions (a division of Stryker Corporation), the nation’s leading two medical device reprocessors, were awarded Practice GreenHealth’s 2013 “Champions for Change Award” for Environmental Excellence.  This commitment to environmental sustainability measures is an example other hospitals can follow to save costs and reduce expenses.

Today, it seems the demand for everyone in health care is to do more with less.  Device reprocessing doesn’t require hospitals to make tough sacrifices, but allows hospitals to use existing resources in a safe, FDA-regulated manner.

If the immediate cost-savings opportunities aren’t enough to persuade hospitals to reprocess, the long-term impacts should.  As the Commonwealth report found, “hospitals create 6,600 tons of waste per day and use large amounts of toxic chemicals. Reducing such pollution and greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the incidence of human disease, thereby saving money for the health care system and society as a whole.”

Going green saves green now, and helps decrease demands on the health care system later.

Categories: Cost-Savings