When it comes to promotional and medical information review, we’ve seen life science organizations use a variety of solutions to facilitate their processes: paper, PDFs, emails, meetings, generic content management software … the list goes on.

While you may be getting by with these solutions, have you ever considered what they actually cost? Beyond dollars and cents, using a non purpose-built solution can impact time and resources spent on your process, which in turn impacts your bottom line of getting content to market.

Need more convincing? Here are five hidden costs of using a makeshift solution for MLR or MRC review:

#1: Team frustration

While team sentiment may not seem like a “cost,” consider the impacts of a frustrated or unhappy review team: frustrated individuals struggle to collaborate effectively, resulting in longer review cycles and churn. Furthermore, paper or email-based processes don’t create a transparent process, meaning there’s risk of finger-pointing among your team that could cause strife between departments and stall the review process.

#2: Paper and storage

Even though paper is a standard office supply, the cost of enough paper to support your review process can rack up quickly if you’re routing materials regularly. Beyond the cost of paper alone, you also have to pay for a space to store your files and physical records, which someone on your team then has to manage and maintain. In fact, an organization routing about 40 jobs per month can spend up to $10,000 per year on paper and storage alone.

#3: Time spent preparing jobs

Time is one of the biggest costs in the workplace if not used effectively. If you’re using paper to facilitate reviews, you spend time preparing, printing, collating, stapling, and circulating documents and associated claims for review. If you’re using email, you spend time compiling and emailing documents and associated claims for review with instructions. Then, when questions arise, time is spent responding to emails and fielding questions to get the whole team on the same page.

#4: Time spent inefficiently during and after review

Email and paper-based systems make it incredibly hard to find documents, claims, and the status of a document in review–meaning your team spends time on these administrative activities for every document that goes through review. Not to mention, someone has to also spend time consolidating feedback and coordinating meetings to get a document to a final state. In isolation, you may only spend 20 minutes per document doing this … but over the course of a month these activities could add up to 100+ hours for a team of 15 routing about 20 documents.

#5: Time spent on audit prep & remediation

Without a purpose-built solution, it is harder to maintain compliance and ensure your entire review team is adhering to your organization’s SOPs. If you’re using paper, email, or generic workflow software to facilitate your review process:

  • you spent time preparing for an audit by collecting paper documentation, sorting through file cabinets and email chains, printing, and organizing, and;
  • after an audit, you spend time remediating findings (or risk not being able to remediate findings at all) due to the shortcomings of your current system.

Even if you’re surviving on your homegrown or makeshift review solution now, consider how these costs add up over time, year after year. With a purpose-built solution, like Pepper Flow, your team can collaborate effectively, move quickly, and stay compliant with your SOPs.

Looking for a cost analysis unique to your organization?
Fill out our ROI calculator to determine the value (in cost and time savings) you would derive from using Pepper Flow®.

Get regular updates on our thoughts, perspectives, and ideas