PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 10286278

Purchasing premixed products.

Abstract

When comparing the cost of a product that requires labor-intensive manufacturing processes (e.g., IV admixtures) with the cost of the same product in a ready-to-use form (e.g., premixed, small-volume, parenteral drugs), all costs and potential savings associated with both forms of the product must be taken into consideration. An additional consideration in determining whether finished products should be purchased requires an analysis of the savings achieved in the pharmacy department in relation to the hospital's cost-reduction strategy. Little purpose would be served if the pharmacy pursued options that benefited only the pharmacy but not the hospital in general. It is time that all hospital departments challenge their staffs to maximize their efforts not only to control costs, but to reduce them as well. The greatest yield in the hospital pharmacy is derived through efforts directed at reducing supply expenditures. One reduction method worthy of analysis is use of premixed, small-volume, parenteral drugs. If it can be shown that the overall cost reduction will result from a decrease in waste, clinical pharmacy intervention through the pharmacy and therapeutics committees, targeted drug programs, quality assurance activities, and reduced operating expenses associated with premixed products, their acquisition price can be justified.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C W Geberbauer. Purchasing premixed products.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10286278/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A prospective, randomized trial to assess the cost impact of pharmacist-initiated interventions.

BACKGROUND: Hospital pharmacists make many recommendations that improve patients' quality of care and/or reduce drug costs. While the impact of quality-of-care interventions is difficult to quantify, those limited to cost savings could be assessed in a prospective, randomized fashion. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of pharmacist-initiated interventions on cost savings. METHODS: Six pharmacists at a large university hospital recorded patient-specific recommendations for 30 days. All quality-of-care interventions were completed by the pharmacists, but those strictly aimed at reducing costs were stratified by drug class and randomized to an intervention or control group. Pharmacists contacted physicians with cost-saving recommendations in the intervention group, while control group patients were simply observed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Drug costs after randomization. RESULTS: Most (n=967 [79%]) of the 1226 interventions recorded were aimed at improving quality of care. The remaining 259 (21%) provided equivalent quality of care, but at less expense. These cost-saving interventions typically involved streamlining therapy to less expensive agents (39%), discontinuing an unnecessary medication (25%), or modifying the route of administration (24%). The group randomized to receive a pharmacist's intervention had drug costs that were 41% lower than those in the control group (mean, $73.75 vs $43.40; P<.001). Interventions involving anti-infective agents had the greatest cost savings (mean, $104.08 vs $58.45; P<.001). For our institution, this extrapolates to an annual savings of approximately $394,000 (95% confidence interval, $46,000-$742,000). As expected, these interventions had no impact on length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmissions, or the need to readminister the targeted medication or restart intravenous therapy. CONCLUSIONS: While interventions solely aimed at reducing costs represent a small portion of a pharmacist's activities, they can result in significant savings for an institution.

Cost Control