Post date: Oct 15, 2010 6:27:41 AM
The headlines are ablaze with the $75 million fine CVS will pay and the forfeiture of $2.6 million profits on sales of pseudoephedrine much of it CVS generic brand products.
According to the Los Angeles Times article, "CVS blamed the problem on the flawed implementation of an electronic monitoring system [called Meth Tracker] that was supposed to guard against excessive purchases." Meth Tracker was supposed to track individual sales that limits customers to the federal limit: one package a day and three per month. The LA Times is the only article that points to "CVS store computers were on an improper setting ...". Smurfers exploited the failed controls buying up to 10 times a day and emptying shelves in California and Nevada. These improper sales took place over a 10 month period with sales increasing 150% according to the Associated Press article. So is this a failure of technology? As an aside, AP reports that employees and managers had reported the unusual sales to management.
The real question for those implementing EMR will be to know if you have the settings set properly. In the case of Meth Tracker, the error was systematic and obvious (even if it seems not acted upon). But with the complexity of an EMR and its myraid of settings and a few dozen office visits per day (per physician), can a wrong setting be detected? Errors from e-iatrogenesis are difficult to detect especially if infrequent and unsystematic. The last thing needed with HCIT is to double check its output or perhaps we should?
**** Addendum ****
Report on State efforts to track Meth Precursors (link)
Background on smurfing in the Crime Report article Cold Medicine Becomes a Hot Commodity