IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v9y2018i03p496-518_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Retrospective and Commentary on FDA’s Bar Code Rule

Author

Listed:
  • Kearsley, Aaron
  • Lew, Nellie
  • Nardinelli, Clark

Abstract

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final regulation in 2004 that requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to place linear bar codes on certain human drug and biological products. The intent was that bar codes would be part of a system where healthcare professionals would use bar code scanning equipment and software to electronically verify against a patient’s medication regimen that the correct medication is being given to the patient before it is administered, which could ultimately reduce medication errors. In the 2004 prospective regulatory impact analysis, FDA anticipated that the rule would stimulate widespread adoption of bar code medication administration technology among hospitals and other facilities, thereby generating public health benefits in the form of averted medication errors. FDA estimated that annualized net benefits would be $5.3 billion. In this retrospective analysis, we reassess the costs and benefits of the bar code rule and our original model and assumptions. Employing the most recent data available on actual adoption rates of bar code medication administration technology since 2004 and other key determinants of the costs and benefits, we examine the impacts of the bar code rule since its implementation and identify approaches to improve the accuracy of future analyses. In this retrospective study, we use alternative models of health information technology diffusion to create counterfactual scenarios against which we compare the benefits and costs of the bar code rule. The magnitudes of the costs and benefits of the 2004 rule are sensitive to assumptions about the counterfactual technology adoption rate, with the upper-bound range of calculated annualized net benefits between $2.7 billion and $6.6 billion depending on the baseline scenario considered.Disclaimer: The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors in their private capacities, and they do not represent the views of the Food and Drug Administration.

Suggested Citation

  • Kearsley, Aaron & Lew, Nellie & Nardinelli, Clark, 2018. "A Retrospective and Commentary on FDA’s Bar Code Rule," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 496-518, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:9:y:2018:i:03:p:496-518_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588818000118/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:9:y:2018:i:03:p:496-518_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.