Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Apr 1:8:70.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-70.

Drug waste minimisation and cost-containment in Medical Oncology: two-year results of a feasibility study

Affiliations

Drug waste minimisation and cost-containment in Medical Oncology: two-year results of a feasibility study

Gianpiero Fasola et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Cost-containment strategies are required to face the challenge of rising drug expenditures in Oncology. Drug wastage leads to economic loss, but little is known about the size of the problem in this field.

Methods: Starting January 2005 we introduced a day-to-day monitoring of drug wastage and an accurate assessment of its costs. An internal protocol for waste minimisation was developed, consisting of four corrective measures: 1. A rational, per pathology distribution of chemotherapy sessions over the week. 2. The use of multi-dose vials. 3. A reasonable rounding of drug dosages. 4. The selection of the most convenient vial size, depending on drug unit pricing.

Results: Baseline analysis focused on 29 drugs over one year. Considering their unit price and waste amount, a major impact on expense was found to be attributable to six drugs: cetuximab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed and trastuzumab. The economic loss due to their waste equaled 4.8% of the annual drug expenditure. After the study protocol was started, the expense due to unused drugs showed a meaningful 45% reduction throughout 2006.

Conclusion: Our experience confirms the economic relevance of waste minimisation and may represent a feasible model in addressing this issue.A centralised unit of drug processing, the availability of a computerised physician order entry system and an active involvement of the staff play a key role in allowing waste reduction and a consequent, substantial cost-saving.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Waste cost proportion of "hot" drugs: 2005 vs 2006, first and second semester.
Figure 2
Figure 2
"Hot" drug decrease in waste proportion: 2005 vs 2006, first and second semester.

References

    1. Meropol NJ, Schulman KA. Cost of Cancer Care: Issues and Implications. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:180–186. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.6081. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Reeder CE, Gordon D. Managing oncology costs. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12:3–16. - PubMed
    1. Ramsey SD, Clarke LMS, Kamath TV, Lubeck D. Evaluation of erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: impact on the budget of a U.S. health insurance plan. J Manag Care Pharm. 2006;12:472–478. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fleming T. Redbook, 2005 Edition. Montvale:Thomson PDR; 2005.
    1. IMS Global Insights. World Markets http://www.imshealth.com/web/content/0,3148,64576068_63872702_70260998_7...

MeSH terms

Substances