Hard to imagine, but in a Weekly Standard piece, Ike Brannon makes the case that this is true: We could save $2 billion by adopting a more efficient eye dropper to dispense the drops doctors prescribe for their patients. Brannon writes that the market in eye drops is worth $3.4 billion annually.

Researchers estimate that patients waste at least half of all of this eye drop medications. A study by University of Michigan researchers estimate that the Veteran’s Administration alone would save over $1 billion a year from the use of a precise eye dropper—as would Medicare Part D.

The idea of a precise eye dropper isn’t new. Alcoa developed such a device in the 1990s but corporate leadership quickly surmised that it would reduce sales. So they shelved it.

Today, a startup called Eyenovia has taken that technology—which resembles the mechanism used in laser jet printing—and improved upon it; the company is in the process of obtaining FDA approval for the technology.

Health care is so complex, yet here’s an example of how saving money involves simple common sense. But there’s a problem, Brannon writes.
And so the drug companies who stand to see profits fall from reduced sales are setting up roadblocks to challenge this new technology, and many patients—most of whom are insulated from costs—will resist change and hold onto their old eyedroppers.
It’s another example of the market distortion that occurs when there is no direct connection between the consumer of the care and the payment. As long as someone else pays the freight — and we the patients have no incentive to learn the actual costs of service and to make our choices accordingly — costs will continue to rise. There are all sorts of policy choices we can make to lower health care costs and expand access to care. The question is whether we have the will to do it. Sure, we can blame the drug companies. But are we consumers ready to take our share of the blame for rising costs and be part of the solution to bring them down?