Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Article CommentaryCommentary

Add to cart?

Ilona Hale
Canadian Family Physician November 2015; 61 (11) 937-939;
Ilona Hale
Family physician in Kimberley, BC, and Clinical Instructor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of British Columbia.
MD CCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ilonadavehale@hotmail.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Imagine a grocery store where none of the items has a price tag. When you ask the cashier about the prices, he suggests you ask the manager. The manager advises you to write a letter to head office, where they confess that the actual cost of the items is a little uncertain. At some point you might decide to shop elsewhere ... except you cannot because this is the only shop in town. If you were trying to responsibly manage your household grocery budget, you would find it quite difficult.

A recent attempt to compare the costs of some simple laboratory tests proved to be equally frustrating. Not to be deterred, I decided to compile my own reference list of costs for frequently ordered investigations (Tables 1 and 2).1 I wrestled with naming “true” costs, which is far more complicated than it initially appears. Just as the cost of groceries can vary depending on where you buy them (eg, an apple might cost a lot more if you buy it in Nunavut than southern Ontario), the cost of a simple complete blood count (CBC) could be anywhere from $5.00 to $50.00 or more depending on a number of variables including the size of the facility, the method of analysis used, the funding model (fee-for-service or global funding), and how far the specimen is transported. Ordering only 1 test at a time costs more per test than ordering several, as there can be a separate fee ($15.62)1 for each blood draw. Provincial guides to fees, where they exist, probably represent the simplest method for practitioners to learn about relative costs; however, even these prices are only negotiated values rather than true costs (Dr Chris Naugler, written communication, March 2013).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Sample costs for radiology investigations

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Sample costs for chemistry, microbiology, and hematology testing: Each blood draw costs $15.62 in addition to test cost, regardless of the number of tests done.

Transparency and awareness

Increasing transparency and awareness of the cost of investigations among providers and patients is important if we are to be effective gatekeepers. Physicians recognize that their knowledge about the cost of tests is poor and report that better knowledge would likely change their ordering habits.2 Costs of investigations are increasing out of proportion to other health care costs,3 in part owing to an estimated 30% to 40% of all tests (and 20% to 95% of selected tests) being ordered unnecessarily.4 In one study, ordering inappropriate tests led to a mean (SD) unnecessary cost of $66.53 ($66.76) per periodic health maintenance visit.5 It is estimated that £1 billion is spent annually on unnecessary tests in the United Kingdom.6

Every day physicians go on multiple blind shopping sprees, racking up health care expenses with little awareness of the costs to the system. Simply ordering a “routine” CBC ($10.96 + $15.62 = $26.58) costs almost as much as the physician visit itself. A simple, but often unnecessary, urine “R&M, C&S” [routine and microscopy, culture and sensitivity] will cost $61.39. A serum pregnancy test is $30.36. Blood type and antibody screening, often repeated several times during each pregnancy, costs $138.32.1

“Often physicians order tests, treatments and procedures despite strong evidence that they may not help, and may even harm, patients.”7 Ordering investigations is quicker and easier than doing a thorough history and physical. It provides us (and patients) with the sense that something is being done and it gives time for many self-limited conditions to resolve. Although studies report no correlation between volume of tests ordered and malpractice suits, many physicians continue to assume that by ordering more tests, the risk of “missing something” will decrease.7 Academic environments, where practice patterns are learned, can subtly reinforce inappropriate ordering behaviour by rewarding trainees perceived as being “thorough.”8 These hard-to-change habits, coupled with patient expectations, lead many completely healthy patients to undergo annual batteries of 20 or more laboratory tests, even though evidence-based screening guidelines recommend very few, if any, routine investigations. More and more, disease-specific guidelines recommend earlier screening, diagnosis of “pre-disease,”8 routine “monitoring” (not necessarily evidence-based) for those “diagnosed,” and even incentives for doctors who comply, whether or not the patient will actually benefit from the tests.7

Improving ordering practices

Incorporating costs of tests into laboratory requisitions or electronic medical records has been shown to reduce rates of investigations by 27% to 36%.9,10 Electronic medical records could incorporate an “Add to Cart” feature that could tally costs being incurred during a visit as tests are ordered. This might be particularly effective if combined with other strategies that have been shown to help physicians translate evidence-based recommendations into ordering practice. One of the most promising of these appears to be point-of-ordering, electronic clinical decision support systems, which can reduce inappropriate ordering by up to 28%.6,11 Restrictive guidelines dictating appropriate timing and indications for such investigations as vitamin D ($61.32), prostate-specific antigen ($32.95), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate ($10.61) measurements are another strategy. In Ontario, it was predicted that simply restricting the use of vitamin D testing would save $64 million per year.12 Although some physicians dislike such regulation because it is perceived as a threat to autonomy, others believe that it does “relieve family doctors from many debates with patients about services with high costs but no clinical benefit.”13 Audit and feedback programs have also had some success,7 such as in British Columbia, where physicians are provided with practice profiles comparing them with their peers in terms of rates of investigations, referrals, and so on. The now widely promoted Choosing Wisely program is an excellent educational resource for clinicians and patients. For family physicians, Choosing Wisely recommends ... avoiding routine pre-op CXRs [chest x-rays], head CTs [computed tomography] for headaches, imaging for low back pain without red flags, Pap smears except in target age group 21–65, unnecessary labour inductions, EKGs [electrocardiograms], exercise stress tests and daily monitoring of CBCs and chemistries in hospital.8

Tremendous opportunity

While Canadians bemoan the ever increasing and apparently unsustainable costs of health care, physicians should remember that virtually all of these costs, beyond the patient-initiated visit, are physician driven. This gives each one of us a tremendous opportunity to control costs without negatively affecting patient care. By becoming more knowledgeable about investigations and their cost implications and carefully considering each click, we can be more confident that each item we “add to cart” will be appropriate.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 941.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • The opinions expressed in commentaries are those of the authors. Publication does not imply endorsement by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    Doctors of BC guide to fees. Vancouver, BC: Doctors of BC; 2013.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Allan GM,
    2. Innes GD
    . Do family physicians know the costs of medical care? Survey in British Columbia. Can Fam Physician 2004;50:263-70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Sivananthan SN,
    2. Peterson S,
    3. Lavergne R,
    4. Barer ML,
    5. McGrail KM
    . Designation, diligence and drift: understanding laboratory expenditure increases in British Columbia, 1996/97 to 2005/06. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:472.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Larsson A
    . What can we learn from studies on regional differences in the utilization of laboratory tests? Ups J Med Sci 2011;116(4):225-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Fung D,
    2. Schabort I,
    3. MacLean CA,
    4. Asrar FM,
    5. Khory A,
    6. Vandermeer B,
    7. et al
    . Test ordering for preventive health care among family medicine residents. Can Fam Physician 2015;61:256-62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Horvath AR
    . From evidence to best practice in laboratory medicine. Clin Biochem Rev 2013;34(2):47-60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Robinson A
    . Rationale for cost-effective laboratory medicine. Clin Microbiol Rev 1994;7(2):185-99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Levinson W,
    2. Huynh T
    . Engaging physicians and patients in conversations about unnecessary tests and procedures: Choosing Wisely Canada. CMAJ 2014;186(5):325-6. Epub 2014 Feb 18.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ellemdin S,
    2. Rheeder P,
    3. Soma P
    . Providing clinicians with information on laboratory test costs leads to reduction in hospital expenditure. S Afr Med J 2011;101(10):746-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Feldman LS,
    2. Shihab HM,
    3. Thiemann D,
    4. Yeh HC,
    5. Ardolino M,
    6. Mandell S,
    7. et al
    . Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173(10):903-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Shojania KG,
    2. Jennings A,
    3. Mayhew A,
    4. Ramsay CR,
    5. Eccles MP,
    6. Grimshaw J
    . The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD001096.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Canadian Agency for Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Health
    . Funding of laboratory testing in Canada. CADTH Environ Scan 2011;19:1-5.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Collier R
    . Considering cost in primary care. CMAJ 2013;185(1):18. Epub 2012 Nov 19.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 61 (11)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 61, Issue 11
1 Nov 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Add to cart?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Add to cart?
Ilona Hale
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2015, 61 (11) 937-939;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Add to cart?
Ilona Hale
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2015, 61 (11) 937-939;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Transparency and awareness
    • Improving ordering practices
    • Tremendous opportunity
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Ajouter au panier?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes: Does an abnormal urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio need to be retested?
  • The 1% versus the 99%: Reducing unnecessary health care costs
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Equipping family physicians to thrive
  • Will blended family physician payment models revive primary care in Canada?
  • Toward an identity and team-based practice rooted in transdisciplinarity
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire