Products & Services Truth or consequences about bar coding
Debate over stripes has some
seeing stars

by Rick Dana Barlow

With emerging tracking technologies (at least in healthcare) such as radio frequency identification (RFID), infrared and ultrasound generating all the buzz and media coverage it’s easy to overlook bar coding, the forerunner in this arena that seems to be getting the short shrift.

Despite impressions that bar coding may be rendered obsolete in the near future (even though the federal government "promotes" the use of bar coding on pharmaceuticals as a counterfeiting/theft prevention and patient safety measure, Healthcare Purchasing News Senior Editor Rick Dana Barlow tapped 12 different experts from 12 different vendors in the bar coding market to react to 12 common provider perceptions about bar coding that have emerged through the years.

HPN recruited the following executives to clear up some of the confusion and douse the burning questions about the technology and its applications.

· Jim Bagley, vice president, sales & marketing, Code Corp., Draper, UT (www.codecorp.com)

· Don Flynn, vice president, business development, Hand Held Products, Skaneateles Falls, NY (www.handheld.com)

· Laurie Hernandez, vice president of strategic marketing, Hospira Inc., Lake Forest, IL (www.hospira.com)

· Ken Kleinberg, senior director, Healthcare Solutions Division, Symbol Technologies Inc., Holtsville, NY (www.symbol.com)

· Keith Lohkamp, product strategist, Supply Chain Management, Lawson Software, St. Paul, MN (www.lawson.com)

· Suneil Mandava, president and CEO, Mobile Aspects Inc., Pittsburgh, PA (www.mobileaspects.com)

· Ralph Moher, director of corporate marketing and communications, General Data Co. Inc., Cincinnati (www.general-data.com)

· James L. Moore, vice president, EHS (Electronic Healthcare Systems), Freedom, PA (www.ehsmed.com)

· Debbie Murphy, global practice leader, life sciences, Zebra Technologies Corp., Vernon Hills, IL (www.zebra.com)

· Ken Perez, senior director of marketing, Omnicell Inc., Mountain View, CA (www.omnicell.com)

· Jamie Stallings, product manager, Healthcare/Retail Systems, SATO America Inc., Charlotte, NC (www.satoamerica.com)

· Jamie Wyatt, vice president, Health Industries, Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores, CA (www.oracle.com)

This month we present five of the myths and perceptions about bar coding in healthcare, while the remainder will appear in the next edition of HPN.

MURPHY: A number of bar code standards are regularly used in healthcare today. Two of the most commonly used symbologies are the Universal Product Number (UPN), which is used to identify medical and surgical products at the packaging level, and the National Drug Code (NDC) identification system, which the FDA uses to uniquely identify all pharmaceuticals. In addition, the EAN.UCC bar coding system is an internationally accepted standard with an estimated 22,000 adherents in the hospital and pharmaceutical industry.

Despite the fact that there is no single, all-embracing industry standard, many healthcare organizations have successfully adopted bar coding and many more continue to readily adopt the technology. In fact, a great deal has been and will be achieved with the existing bar code symbologies.

WYATT: Today, manufacturers rely upon multiple standards for bar coding, creating problems for organizations without systems in place to read multiple bar code formats. Using current applications and technologies can resolve this issue and require organizations to only need to know which format the manufacturer uses.

MANDAVA: There are standards for bar codes for various industries. The Grocery and Retail industries have done a wonderful job in standardizing their bar codes across product types. We see the benefits now not only as consumers, but also in the efficiencies of these industries’ supply chains. However, in the healthcare industry, this has not happened. Working with various hospitals and manufacturers, we have seen many reasons for this. Two of the major reasons we hear that medical device and drug manufacturers have not standardized is (1) the complexity of the devices or drugs manufactured; and (2) often the manufacturers buy other companies and it takes them time to bring their bar codes to the purchasing companies’ standards. In the case of the former, Mobile Aspects has seen the variety and the permutations in differences in tracking medical devices. Though put in the same category (stent, pacemaker, orthopedics, etc), each manufacturer’s product is very different from the next. A standardized bar code, with its limited data capacity, does not allow for this complexity.

PEREZ: For over two decades, there have been two standards authorities driving bar coding standards, data structures and symbologies, the Health Industry Business Communications Council (HIBCC) and the EAN.UCC,
administered in the U.S. by the Uniform Code Council (UCC).

BAGLEY: The same standards that are used to trace retail and industrial products are available for prescription and unit dose applications.

The Uniform Code Council has ascribed marking standards for all pharmaceutical products. The council developed and standardized the RSS Stacked Composite symbology, which includes lot and expiration date traceability, with this application in mind.

In addition to commercial products with machine readable 1-D and 2-D symbols, in-house marking of prescriptions at the unit-dose level include the use of the DataMatrix 2-D symbology (ISO standard, ISO/IEC16022). This method of marking products provides in-house control of information regarding a unit dose. These symbols require about a ¼-inch square area for the mark, and are used for marking any number of different types of unit dose products. Computer systems and label printers that support this application are widely available.

MOHER: Bar code technology has been widely implemented and proven successful as a mechanism for streamlining business processes in a large number of industries. The implementation of bar coding for shipping and receiving, product identification, ordering and inventory has resulted in greatly increased efficiencies and cost savings and has provided significant safeguards against human error. Within healthcare, the FDA recently confirmed the importance of bar coding and automated identification as a tool for reducing medical error and improving patient safety with its final rule, "Bar Code Label Requirements for Human Drug Products and Biological Products." The ruling mandates the inclusion of linear bar codes on most prescription drugs used in hospitals and supports the use of the Health Industry Bar Code (HIBC) Supplier Labeling Standard for that purpose. 

HERNANDEZ: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a standard of linear bar codes for pharmaceuticals and biological products, which enable healthcare providers to implement medication delivery/ verification systems to reduce the potential for medication errors. Standards are also developed and supported by key organizations, such as UCC and GS1, and within GS1, the Healthcare User Group (HUG). Use of the GS1 worldwide bar-code standards, including both format and quality measurements, should facilitate faster and less expensive adoption of bar-code systems.

FLYNN: Bar code symbology standards are very mature and are used daily to govern tens of millions of transactions around the world each day. Bar code standards are in place on several levels.

Global bar code standards are published and maintained by the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The Automatic Identification/Data Collection (AIDC) industry publishes bar codes standards under the AIM trade organization. For the ubiquitous UPC/EAN bar codes, retail industry bar code standards are maintained by the Uniform Code Council (UCC). International standards are also maintained by the GS1 organization.

In addition to global standards, most mature industries also define industry-specific standards. Important examples of industry-specific bar code standards are Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), Healthcare Industry Business Communications Council (HIBCC) and Electronics Industry Association (EIA).

MOORE: A commonly accepted standard is
[Code 39], and is used throughout the healthcare supply chain. Today’s bar code scanners are capable of distinguishing between multiple symbologies automatically, so a single standard is not necessary.

LOHKAMP: Depending upon the application, there are current, well-established standards for bar coding developed over many years by standards groups, such as the Uniform Council Code, now called GS1. For example, shipping labels commonly use UCC-128-
formatted bar codes to communicate information about a shipment, while products have been labeled with UPC bar codes.

STALLINGS: While this is true there are talks underway to establish a standard bar code. Currently many locations use linear bar codes for such things as medical record numbers or account numbers; however the limitations of this type of bar code make its use somewhat limited throughout the entire enterprise. To counter this limitation, 2-D (dimensional) bar codes have been getting serious consideration and the industry appears to be leaning toward the Aztec bar code. This code allows for greater data compression in a very small package.

KLEINBERG: The standards that major bar code standards bodies address fall into two broad categories – data carrier standards and data structure standards. Data carriers are the bar code symbologies themselves such as Code 39, Code 128, PDF417, Datamatrix, etc. There are dozens of such symbologies from the simple to the complex, and new symbologies or modified symbologies are continually being introduced. However, not all symbologies would be considered standards. In general, for a symbology to be a standard, it must be defined in detail, approved by a major standards body and have a significant following. PFD417, for example, is a standard symbology used on most state driver’s licenses. Datamatrix is a common standard used for Direct Part Marking (DPM). Data structures define what the data encoded in a symbology represents, such as a UPC (Universal Product Code), or the GTIN (Global Trade Identification Number). National Drug Code (NDC) numbers are an example of a data structure standard. The FDA specified bar code standards as defined by the UCC and HIBCC for the FDA bar code regulation on medications that is now in full effect.

BAGLEY: RFID is a very powerful tool but does not replace bar codes for unit-dose applications. RFID has serious limitations in terms of working range, data capacity, RFID tag expense, expense of readers and lack of commercially tagged products. RFID does have a major advantage in that it is a read-write technology allowing about 10 characters of data to be changed ‘on the fly.’ This technology is well-suited for applications that require specific handling and delivery proof. It is not envisioned that the unit-dose reading requirement will be served by RFID.

FLYNN: Bar code and RFID are complementary, not directly competitive technologies. Remember that RFID is not a new technology – it has been around nearly as long as bar codes. Bar codes will continue to be the dominant automatic data collection technology for many decades to come.

LOHKAMP: Most experts believe RFID and bar codes will co-exist for decades while the cost of RFID gradually declines and the technology matures. Today, however, healthcare providers can achieve numerous benefits by using bar codes for inventory and receiving processes. For example, many Lawson customers use bar codes to label par location shelves. This allows them to simply scan a bar code using a wireless handheld before performing a par count.

MOHER: RFID is an emerging technology, and as such, there are still many technological and process hurdles to overcome in terms of large-scale manufacturing of the chips and antennae, and technology implementation. Even as RFID technology matures, industry experts agree that RFID is not a replacement for bar coding; rather they are synergistic technologies and will complement each other across applications and industries. For healthcare facilities that currently do not have any automated data collection system and infrastructure in place and are seriously considering RFID, it is recommended to implement a bar code-based system first, and then consider adding RFID capabilities to that system at a later date.   

WYATT: To date, the adoption of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology has been slow in the healthcare market. Significant limiting factors for widespread RFID adoption include RFID tag costs, the lack of standards within the tags, as well as the use of active and passive tags. Like all other disruptive technologies, it will take time for full RFID adoption. However, bar codes are currently available on virtually all products and would enable process improvements today. Waiting until RFID tags become ubiquitous leaves potential operational improvements and cost savings on the table for what could be many years to come. Adopting bar coding to its fullest extent today will help pave the way for operational improvements that will then be maximized using RFID in years to come.

STALLINGS: You may be in for a very long wait. The current limitations on RFID technology specifically in the area of patient tracking must be overcome to be a viable solution. Present use of RFID is mainly limited to asset tracking/location. 

KLEINBERG: Bar coding is a mature and affordable technology that is being used in significant number of industries. RFID, on the other hand, is a nascent technology in the marketplace that is only used in markets like manufacturing and retail. Both bar coding and RFID are considered auto-identification technologies – and can be used for many of the same applications, such as asset tracking. RFID offers some distinct advantages over bar coding, such as the ability to read multiple tags simultaneously, and the ability to write an update to a tag that has already been attached to a product or asset. However, such issues as electromagnetic interference and cost are all factors that will likely take years to address. Users with Auto-ID needs can invest with confidence in bar code technology today and gradually introduce RFID technology for specific high-return-on-investment applications as it continues to mature.

MURPHY: RFID is a complementary technology to bar coding, not a straight replacement. Based on the relative functionality, cost and ease-of-use of the technologies, it is likely that both will work side-by-side for many years to come. There are applications that are better served by bar coding, and there are specific applications, like asset tracking, that are well served by RFID. Both technologies will continue to see growth in the healthcare market.

MOORE: Yes, that may eventually happen, but the likelihood of bar codes being replaced in the next five years is very remote. Until then the benefits of bar codes are too great to be overlooked. In addition, keep in mind, bar code- and RFID-based processes are similar in they both involve two parts to operate. The bar codes and the RFID labels are read, and the read data is processed. If your MMIS is properly designed, it should be capable of migrating from bar codes to RFID. Think of it this way: You have a phone in your home, which is plugged into your phone company. You can buy a new phone and plug it in and it works. The phone is simply capturing the data entered, the phone number. The phone company processes the data to connect your call. Similarly, the bar code scanner and the RFID reader are data collection devices. The data processing occurs in your MMIS. Thus, allowing data collection devices to be changed as technologies evolve.

MANDAVA: Mobile Aspects believes that eventually RFID will replace the bar code in almost every application. However, for the foreseeable future, there will be a combination of RFID and bar codes in use. Mobile Aspects has designed our systems to be open and allow for both RFID and bar code information. Today, hospitals need to find RFID solutions that bring a strong financial return on investment, of which there are many. Mobile Aspects’ solution for tracking medical devices in hospital cardiology, radiology and operating room departments shows a hard dollar return on investment in less than 18 months, and in many cases, much faster. Further, our RFID systems eliminate a lot of compliance required in bar code systems. In general, we have found hospitals are not looking for the technology just for technology’s sake. Hospitals want to run their facilities efficiently and profitably while delivering a higher quality care.

PEREZ: That’s an unrealistic and unwise approach. It’s akin to waiting until hydrogen-powered cars become commonplace before using a car for transportation. Bar code technology is well-established, with a comprehensive infrastructure, industry support, and proven economic and patient safety value propositions. Using bar code technology can bring many benefits today. While certainly holding great promise, at this point RFID is not well-established in terms of agreed-upon standards, infrastructure or widespread industry support. Plus, it is very likely that both bar code and RFID processes will coexist in the future, so the lessons learned from using bar code technology today will pay off when RFID technology is adopted.

HERNANDEZ: It is important that we work with a sense of urgency in improving the safety and quality of our healthcare systems. We believe there will be a role for both technologies in the improvement of healthcare. Bar codes have been proven to reduce the number of medication errors – the technology can save lives. Furthermore, while RFID technology has advanced greatly over the years, issues with the sizes and/or compatibility of tags with certain products precludes RFID from replacing bar-code technology today.

MOORE: Healthcare often is slow on the uptake with technologies that are not perceived as revenue generating. However, there are significant benefits to be achieved through the use of bar code technology in the healthcare supply chain. For example: Streamlining processes and improved data accuracy from PAR management, physical inventory counts, to patient charge capture and product delivery verification, including Fed Ex/UPS package tracking.

LOHKAMP: Although the healthcare industry has been slow to adopt the technology, we’re seeing a steady increase in interest in bar code technology and expect many of our customers to begin using bar codes in their storerooms, supply rooms and warehouses. We expect that some of the foundational work done to change processes in order to adopt bar codes will help accelerate the adoption of RFID by making the switch to RFID less disruptive.

STALLINGS: True, but it is not the fault of the technology. Healthcare providers have been slow to adopt bar code tracking, possibly due to a misunderstanding of the ROI. With the government’s mandate to bar code pharmaceuticals to the unit-dose level, it requires only a small additional effort to implement a bar code system for the entire enterprise. Its relative low cost compared to wrongful death litigation and to RFID makes it a winning proposition.  

WYATT: Many organizations have antiquated applications and lack the technological ability to use bar codes today. Those limitations have delayed the adoption of bar codes to the maximum extent possible. However, those organizations with state-of-the-art applications and technology, such as bar coding, have driven operational improvements, leading to significant time and cost savings. Without state-of-the-art applications and technology, bar code adoption will not occur to its greatest potential.

HERNANDEZ: We don’t perceive the relatively slower adoption to reflect on the belief in bar-coding technology as much as an additional cost issue for already burdened healthcare systems to address. Hospitals are faced with an array of patient safety technologies to invest in today, and of course, have limited resources. As a supplier, Hospira hoped to facilitate the adoption of bar-code systems by supplying all of our drug products with bar codes down to the unit of use at no extra cost. In March 2003 (three years in
advance of the FDA’s mandated spring 2006 implementation date), we completed an effort to affix unit-of-use bar codes to 100 percent of our hospital injectable pharmaceuticals and intravenous (I.V.) solutions. The initiative encompassed more than 1,000 products and helped to impact patient safety where it is most critical, at the patient bedside.

FLYNN: Healthcare is one of the last remaining industries to embrace the benefits of barcode-based automatic data collection technology. Historically, this has been because healthcare – unlike retail, transportation and warehousing, for example – has not been focused on productivity and operational efficiency. The highly fragmented state of IT systems within hospitals have also impeded bar code adoption. In most hospitals, there are many ‘islands of automation’ – typically a point solution for each function and/or department. Furthermore, these departmental systems are not interoperable, limiting the extent to which AIDC technology can be deployed effectively. However, the drive to improve soaring healthcare costs and the important new emphasis on ‘five rights’ patient safety systems is changing healthcare’s traditional resistance to the benefits of bar code systems.

BAGLEY: Major healthcare organizations nationwide have rolled out full eMAR [electronic medication administration and reporting] applications within the last few years. A new generation of cordless bar code reading products has made much of this possible. In addition, widespread adoption of WiFi data networks within hospitals supports the mobile infrastructure necessary for eMAR.

MOHER: The FDA’s ‘Bar Code Label Requirements for Human Drug Products and Biological Products’ ruling mandates the inclusion of linear bar codes on most prescription drugs used in hospitals. Healthcare facilities have long awaited this ruling in order to use it as the standard from which to develop bar code-based systems for patient identification, medication administration, specimen collection, etc.

MANDAVA: Hospitals do look at bar code as the technology of the future in many cases; it just hasn’t been ingrained into hospital operations as it has in many other industries. However, I believe this could be an advantage: Just as many Asian countries have leapfrogged over the landline telephone infrastructure to everyone having cell phones, U.S. hospitals can leapfrog over the bar code and jump straight to RFID for many applications. The hospital industry does not have to spend a lot of money replacing heavy investments into bar coding.

KLEINBERG: Bar coding is one of many technologies, proven in other industries, that has yet to become ubiquitous in healthcare. The fact is that healthcare has only minimally invested in IT technologies over the years. Unfortunately, change generally comes slow to all industries, including healthcare. However, the last few years have seen a significant shift from the perception of IT as a cost center to that of a key enabler for healthcare. Bar coding is now used in more than 10 percent of U.S. hospitals for medication administration and that percentage is expected to double over the next 12-18 months. Adoption has now crossed ‘the chasm’ from just early adopters to more mainstream use – by large hospitals and small. Organizations such as the VA and HCA are leading the charge.

MURPHY: Hospitals are often delayed in adopting new technologies and improving supply chain efficiency, but the industry’s recent focus on patient safety is spurring a growing interest in bar coding technology. With pressure from industry groups like the FDA and JCAHO, hospitals are starting to embrace bar coding, particularly for bedside medication administration. In fact, bedside medication administration is expected to double within the next year. Once hospitals successfully leverage bar coding in patient-safety applications, other areas like inventory management are natural next steps.

PEREZ: That’s more a reflection of healthcare’s legacy as a relatively slow adopter of technology than any sort of indictment about bar
code technology, which has enjoyed tremendous success and is ubiquitous in many other industries.

FLYNN: Ninety-plus percent of all barcode applications can be handled with optical line of sight. Within line-of-sight applications, bar code technology is far more efficient and productive than RFID. RFID’s lack of maturity as a technology and as a reliable standard make it a poor choice today for line-of-sight applications

MOHER: This is an example of bar coding and RFID exist- ing as synergistic, rather than replace-ment,technologies.
Applications must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in order to determine which technology is most efficient and productive.  While RFID does not, in theory, require line-of-sight scanning, most low-cost passive RFID chips require a reader to be positioned between 1 -2 inches away from the chip in order for a successful read.  In addition, there are numerous environmental obstacles that will interfere with a non-line-of-sight RFID scan, including, metals, liquids and electronic interference.

KLEINBERG: Bar coding and RFID have different strengths, challenges and costs, and as such, should be matched to the specific application. For example, in the supply chain or inventory applications, there are advantages to being able to read items rapidly with RFID as they come down a conveyor belt or pass through a portal, without having to worry about whether the tag is directly facing the reader. However, when it comes to item-level identification, the line-of-sight limitations of bar code scanning are actually an advantage. For example, a nurse with two RFID-tagged packages of medications would have to separate each by approximately 12 inches to identify one from the other. This is because an RFID reader would likely read both objects at the same time, which can result in the wrong package being read. Bar coding, on the other hand, with its laser aiming, would give the user high confidence as to which item was scanned.

HERNANDEZ: While we’re not aware of any studies comparing the two technologies for efficiency and productivity, there are a number of well-documented studies that illustrate the power of bar-code systems to reduce medication errors. In our view, that is one of the most critical contributions a technology can make.

WYATT: While this statement is accurate, waiting for RFID tags to become available on all products will leave operational improvements and greater efficiencies on the table for years to come. This industry does not have the luxury to wait for RFID. We must make operational changes that drive savings today, not wait five-plus years for these to become a possibility.

MOORE: Line of sight is much less an issue in the day to day operations in healthcare than in other industries. Healthcare is very hand to hand, patient, nurse, doctor, supplies. The healthcare supply chain adapts to bar codes very well, when the decision is made for their use, and properly designed and implemented.

LOHKAMP: Once RFID technology reaches maturity, it does offer the promise of being extremely efficient. However, until that time, bar codes continue to be very efficient tools for driving staff productivity and ensuring accurate data.

STALLINGS: True to a point, but it depends on the application. If the intent is to track patients, line- of-sight interaction with the patient is preferable not only to establish two forms of patient identification, but also to interact with the patient to promote patient health by relieving some of the stress associated with any hospital stay. If the intent is to track and locate assets, this is very true because an active RFID tag will broadcast its location and announce ‘here I am.’

MANDAVA: The bar code’s biggest limitation in a hospital is that is requires too much manual compliance by clinicians. As assumed, it is much less efficient because it requires line of sight scanning and you can only scan one item at a time. In our RFID systems for tracking medical devices, we can scan several hundreds of items in a matter of a few seconds and with no manual input needed whatsoever. This brings tremendous efficiency and requires no compliance. Further, applied the proper way, RFID is much more accurate, because it does not rely on a person to take action. Our systems show full accuracy and remove the need for any cycle counts or data checking in general. But again, RFID is not yet a panacea. There are several applications that RFID brings a strong return on investment today, but hospitals should make sure and analyze which ones they look at and make sure that the ROI is 18 months or less.

BAGLEY: Reading ranges for RFID tags are actually smaller than bar code.

MURPHY: In many healthcare applications, bar coding can be just as efficient and productive as RFID. For example, when it comes to conducting the ‘five rights’ for bedside medication administration, the number of steps a provider must complete remain the same whether using bar coding or RFID. Nurses will still need to scan their badge, the patient wristband and the medication, and introducing RFID into the process does not yield a significant gain in efficiency. Also, the omni-directional nature of RFID can be a disadvantage for some applications in healthcare, such as unit-dose labeling for medications, because it makes it difficult to distinguish one item from another if two tagged items are in close proximity. In this instance, a bar code scanner that requires a line of sight will give nurses more clarity when it comes to differentiating medications from one another.

PEREZ: From a narrow, scanning-only perspective, this statement has some validity. However, from a broader, system-wide perspective, given the added resources required to set up an RFID network and to tag items, at present bar code systems are easier to implement and are more cost-effective.

FLYNN: Bar codes are far more cost-effective than RFID. After all, it’s hard to beat ink on paper for low cost!

BAGLEY: Bar code labels are several orders of magnitude lower cost than RFID tags.

MOHER: Two-dimensional bar codes are significantly more cost-effective than RFID tags. In today’s market, a typical low-cost UHF class 2 passive RFID tag costs between 15-20 cents. A label containing any type of bar code, two-dimensional or otherwise, can be produced oftentimes for less than a penny.   

LOHKAMP: Two- and three-dimensional bar codes can be cost effective based on the low start-up cost to begin using them. You can usually take advantage of existing bar code printers, and most new handheld devices can read these bar codes.

STALLINGS: In what respect? If both are single-use technologies the bar code wins hands down. If on the other hand the RFID tag is intended to be reused, the erasing and rewriting of the tag also reduces the cost of ownership for the tag on a per-use basis. However, the reuse of a tag will require ‘many behavioral, equipment, facility, and process changes.’

MANDAVA: RFID, in many situations, will always be more cost effective than any type of bar code. Two- and three-dimensional bar codes only allow for more data compared to
a regular bar code. However, all other issues of the bar code remain the same. Line of site is required, only one item can be scanned at
a time, it is still error prone due to all the human scanning required and it is affected by many outside issues. RFID eliminates all of these issues.

KLEINBERG: The bar codes themselves are only one part of the cost of a bar code solution. RFID portal readers and mobile computers with RFID capabilities are generally more expensive today than bar code scanning equipment – but again, this depends on the application. RFID has many advantages in the supply chain, but still primarily at the case and pallet level. Item-level tagging of products like CDs, shirts and pill bottles are just beginning to take hold.

MURPHY: It is actually more cost effective today to print two-dimensional bar codes than it is to implement RFID. While the price of RFID tags continues to decline, tags are just one part of the RFID cost equation. Other costs, such expenses related to developing a wireless infrastructure or purchasing hardware, middleware and software, continue to make RFID a more expensive option.

PEREZ: On a pure cost basis, today’s two- and three-dimensional bar code labels are a fraction of the cost of passive RFID tags and a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper than active RFID tags. Real cost-effectiveness would weigh the utility gained from the technologies versus the total cost of implementing and supporting the technologies. Without such information, cost-effectiveness is an apples-versus-oranges comparison.  

MOORE: Cost effectiveness is dependant upon many variables, without which information it is a guess as to whether two and three dimensional bar codes are more or less cost effective than RFID tags. Doing the proper due diligence will provide the necessary information to make the correct decision.

HERNANDEZ: Real-world use has demonstrated that two-dimensional bar codes can be implemented on pharmaceuticals without impacting the cost of these drugs.

WYATT: Bar code technology exists today and can drive process improvements that can benefit healthcare organizations immediately, as opposed to waiting for the possible business benefits in the future with RFID. HPN

 

Suppliers announce safer non-PVC medical devices at CleanMed At CleanMed 2006, Hospira became the first leading supplier to launch a full-service PVC-free, phthalate-free IV container, signaling an important shift in the medical device market toward safer alternatives. Hospira’s new IV container is PVC/DEHP free and weighs 40-60% less than other flexible IV containers, resulting in significant waste reduction. PVC medical devices are a health concern because they contribute to dioxin formation during manufacture and incineration; and during use, the devices can leach the phthalate DEHP, a reproductive toxicant linked to birth defects in laboratory animals. The FDA warned health care providers in 2002 that some patients may be at risk from DEHP leaching from PVC medical devices and recommended switching to alternatives. Baxter International announced a limited launch of a new specialty PVC-free IV system at CleanMed. Also, Arden Architectural Specialties announced it is phasing out PVC production and introducing a new line of corn-based, bio-polymer blend wall production products, including corner guards, crash rails and handrails. Health Care Without Harm announced a list of more than 100 health care organizations that have undertaken efforts to reduce PVC and/or DEHP, including six of the largest Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) and some of the leading health care systems and largest hospitals in the country. The announcements were made at CleanMed 2006 in Seattle, more than 500 health care leaders gathered for the world’s largest health care conference on environmentally preferable medical products and green buildings. www.noharm.org MedAssets Net Revenue Systems introduces KnowledgeMaster Plus MedAssets Net Revenue Systems launched KnowledgeMaster Plus, a web-based tool containing comprehensive chargemaster, coding, and compliance research information, at the company’s Healthcare Business Summit in Las Vegas. Enhancements include complete integration with MediRegs’ content and research tools. MediRegs is the regulatory and content source used by more than 800 hospitals. Several features of Knowledge-Master Plus, powered by MediRegs, include: Pricing benchmarks for 95 percent of all clinical services, including supplies and pharmaceuticals; Links between HCPCS and medical devices; Links between NDC, Charging and HCPCS; Fiscal Intermediary-specific coding recommendations; APC and DRG reimbursement information; Indexed searches of hundreds of regulatory documentations including Federal Register, Transmittals, NCDs and LCDs; Customizable content and alerts; Pharmacy multipliers; and Chargeable and non-chargeable indicators. www.medassets.com.

June
2006