The Impact of an Electronic Expensive Test Notification

Objectives The impact of clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) that display test cost information has been variable. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the 3-year impact of a passive CDST that notified providers when the test order cost was $1,000 or more. We determined the most common expensive tests ordered, the frequency with which providers abandoned the order after notification, and the costs saved through this intervention. Results The average monthly abandonment rate was 12.5% (2014), 12.9% (2015), and 14.3% (2016). The cost savings from tests not performed for this 3-year period was $696,007. Molecular hematopathology assays were the most frequently ordered tests, with variable abandonment rates. Conclusions Although this CDST was passive (ie, could be overridden at the point of order entry) and was associated with a relatively low abandonment rate, it achieved a considerable cost savings each year since each abandoned test saved the institution $1,000 or more.

[1]  Laura A. Hatfield,et al.  The Effect of Price Information on the Ordering of Images and Procedures , 2017, Pediatrics.

[2]  E. Orav,et al.  The Impact of Cost Displays on Primary Care Physician Laboratory Test Ordering , 2014, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  Anand S Dighe,et al.  The role of informatics and decision support in utilization management. , 2014, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[4]  M. Cabana,et al.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. , 1999, JAMA.

[5]  C. Gross,et al.  Impact of price display on provider ordering: A systematic review. , 2016, Journal of hospital medicine.

[6]  Jacquelyn D. Riley,et al.  Improving Molecular Genetic Test Utilization through Order Restriction, Test Review, and Guidance. , 2015, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[7]  Gary W Procop,et al.  Duplicate laboratory test reduction using a clinical decision support tool. , 2014, American journal of clinical pathology.

[8]  Dylan S. Small,et al.  Effect of a Price Transparency Intervention in the Electronic Health Record on Clinician Ordering of Inpatient Laboratory Tests: The PRICE Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[9]  E. Melhuish,et al.  Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and High School Performance , 2017, Pediatrics.

[10]  M. Porter.  A strategy for health care reform--toward a value-based system. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  B. Galen.  The Impact of Cost Displays on Ordering , 2014, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[12]  J. Lewin,et al.  Provider cost transparency alone has no impact on inpatient imaging utilization. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[13]  Leonard T. Buller,et al.  Bundled Payments in Total Joint Replacement: Keeping Our Care Affordable and High in Quality , 2017, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[14]  T. Bishop,et al.  The Effect of Charge Display on Cost of Care and Physician Practice Behaviors: A Systematic Review , 2015, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[15]  Gary W Procop,et al.  Reducing duplicate testing: a comparison of two clinical decision support tools. , 2015, American journal of clinical pathology.

[16]  Kevin B. Johnson,et al.  The Impact of Peer Management on Test-Ordering Behavior , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  Steven L. Chen,et al.  MACRA and the Changing Medicare Payment Landscape , 2017, Annals of surgical oncology.

[18]  G. Procop,et al.  Acid-fast Smear and Histopathology Results Provide Guidance for the Appropriate Use of Broad-Range Polymerase Chain Reaction and Sequencing for Mycobacteria. , 2015, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.