In my previous MBA Dissertation revisited post I concluded the statement “RFID has benefits to patient safety still remains an assumption; indeed a more efficient supply chain employing, both bar codes and RFID, is also an assumption. But, it is certain that the interest, and potential for growth in use of RFID in healthcare, will continue…” but will that be voluntary or regulated?
NOTE: Original text from dissertation will be shown in italics.
Discussion
6.1.2 “…manufacturer applied or embedded RFID…
…would… manufacturers be requested to voluntarily tag [medical products] or would they be required (mandated) to do so through regulation?
Based on the experience with bar codes in healthcare highlighted by Flynn, quoted in Healthcare Purchasing News (Reiner & Sullivan (2005), 2.3.2.2.), the author would suggest that it should be voluntary.
Whilst… manufacturers may make a commercial decision to invest in and adopt RFID to increase the efficiency of their supply chain (5.3.2.), their control or influence over the supply chain ends at the point of delivery, e.g. at the healthcare facility. For a healthcare facility to reap the benefits of manufacturer applied or embedded RFID, they would require a technical infrastructure (1.3), processes and trained resource to be in place and working efficiently, i.e. fully adopted into their operations – this would require a significant financial and operational investment in each facility (Roark & Miguel (2006), 2.3.2.4.).
To mandate… manufacturers to tag would require a deliverable guarantee that the… supply chain would be fully extended downstream into each healthcare facility, to the point of care/the patient. But a comment taken from the summary of the Harrop report (in Anon, UsingRFID.Com (2006)) indicates that the “…primary impediments to rollout of RFID in healthcare are limited budgets, inertia, lack of education, high cost of many RFID systems…”; the author would argue that such a guarantee to… manufacturers is, therefore unlikely to be deliverable.
Whether voluntary or mandatory, without the technical infrastructure, processes and trained resource operational in the healthcare facility… manufacturer applied or embedded RFID, or any AIDC, will deliver little, if any, improvements to either the healthcare facility’s internal supply chain or to patient safety. The experience with Bar Codes is a case in point (Furness, 2005 (2.3.2.4.)).”
Broadly, I think the foregoing text still holds true.
Over the intervening few years, since publication of my MBA, I think the hype around RFID has dissipated and the approach to the technology is now more pragmatic, driven in part by various pilots (e.g. BRIDGE) and lobbying by supplier organisations. Moves by regulators to mandate manufacturers to apply or embed RFID tags to their products are rare, but can occur, e.g. Securing Pharma article “South Korea gets behind RFID tagging” (April 2010).
As predicted “manufacturers [have made] commercial decision[s] to invest in and adopt RFID to increase the efficiency of their supply chain (5.3.2.) as reflected in Alien’s White Paper “Pharmaceutical Shifts
Towards UHF RFID for Savings” (Dec 2008), but at least one pundit believes “RFID is DEAD… at Unit-Level in Pharma.”
In addition, it is still the case that manufacturers “…control or influence over the supply chain ends at the point of delivery, e.g. at the healthcare facility”, indeed globally few healthcare facilities are capable in terms of “…technical infrastructure (1.3), processes and trained resource…” to benefit from other AIDC technologies, e.g. Bar Codes.
The subject of a future “MBA Review” post:
6.1.3 “…RFID has benefits… over existing AIDC technologies, e.g. Bar Codes.”