한국병원경영학회지 (Korea Journal of Hospital Management)

한국병원경영학회 (Korean Society of Hospital Management)
권호 표지

치료재료 별도산정 기준 개선을 위한 델파이 및 계층분석과정 조사

Research on Reimbursement of Therapeutic Medical Device through Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process

  • 노진원 (을지대학교 의료경영학과) ;
  • 이예진 (을지대학교 의료경영학과) ;
  • 장석용 (을지대학교 예방의학교실) ;
  • 김미경 (차의과학대학교 분당차병원 진료비관리팀) ;
  • 조경희 (연세대학교 대학원 보건학과) ;
  • 김재현 (단국대학교 보건행정학과) ;
  • 유기봉 (연세대학교 보건행정학과 정보통계학과)
  • Noh, Jin-Won (Department of Healthcare Management, Eulji University) ;
  • Lee, Yejin (Department of Healthcare Management, Eulji University) ;
  • Jang, Suk Yong (Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Eulji University) ;
  • Kim, Mi Kyung (Department of Medical cost management, Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Cho, Kyoung Hee (Department of Public Health, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Hyun (Department of Health Administration, Dankook University) ;
  • Yoo, Ki-Bong (Department of Health Administration, Department of Information& Statistics, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2018.08.14
  • 심사 : 2018.12.13
  • 발행 : 2018.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purposes: The objectives of this study present the direction of the criteria for the separately reimbursement of therapeutic medical device. Methodology: We summarized experts' opinion using Delphi survey and Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP). 48 experts were gathered from Medical Insurance Review Nurses Association, medical device industry, academy and association, Medical Device Expert Evaluation Committee. Descriptive statistics, consistency index, content validity ratio were analyzed. Findings: Clinical utility, patient safety, infection control, cost-homogeneity, cost-effectiveness showed high feasibility and importance, but market contribution and functional utility showed low feasibility and importance in a relative sense. The results of functional utility differed between clinical and non-clinical experts. Measurability was low across the whole area. Among the criteria for the separately reimbursement of therapeutic medical device. Patient safety/infection control and clinical utility showed the highest relative importance values, analyzed using AHP. Practical Implications: Patient safety and infection control are needed to be considered as one of Value Assessment Criteria. It is important to find out how to improve the measurability of therapeutic medical device.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2016 Trends and prospects of therapeutic medical device. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2016.
  2. Lee KD. Experiences and Tasks of the Medical Device Expert Evaluation Committee. HIRA Policy Trend 2012;6(3):21-31.
  3. Lee SS, Salole E. Medical Device Reimbursement Coverage and Pricing Rules in Korea: Current Practice and Issues with Access to Innovation. Value In Health 2014;17:476-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1719
  4. Lee CS, Kang GW, Byun SA. Revision Research Report of Relative Value Based Scale. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2006.
  5. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Reduce outpatient copayment for singlue use syringe and endoscope disinfection. Ministry of Health and Welfare press release. 2016 Nov 4.
  6. Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M. Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies;2011.
  7. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology 1975;28:563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  8. Lee SS, Symonds D, Kamogawa S, Sato M, Chiang E, Salole E. Reimbursement Coverage and Pricing Systems for Single-Use Devices in Asia-Pacific: Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and Australia Compared. Value In Health 2015;6C:126-129.
  9. Sorenson C, Kanavos P. Financing Medical Devices in France and the UK. European Health Technology Institute on Socio-Economic Research;2014.
  10. Haute Autorite de Sante. Medical device assessment in France. Haute Autorite de Sante;2009.
  11. Iglesias CP. Does assessing the value for money of therapeutic medical devices require a flexible approach? Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res 2015;15(1):21-32. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2015.982098
  12. Frigerio M. Getting approval for new therapeutic medical devices versus drugs: are the differences justified? Eur Respir Rev 2016;25:223-226. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0037-2016
  13. Martelli N, Devaux C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Borget I. A Systematic Review of the Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Medical Devices: The Example of Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty. Plos One 2015;10(12):e0144892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144892
  14. Chen W, Yu J, Zhang L, Su G, Wang W, Kwong J, Sun X, Li Y. Quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic cardiovascular medical devices. Surgery 2018;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.09.010.
  15. Venkatesh MP, Bandla DT. Regulatory Assessment of Premarket Approval of Medical Devices in US and EU. IJPCR 2017;9(4):281-285.
  16. FDA. Use of Real-World Evidence to support regulatory decision-making for medical devices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration; 2017.
  17. Schnell-Inderst P, Hunger T, Condrads-Frank A, Arvandi M, Siebert U. Recommendations for primary studies evaluating therapeutic medicaldevices were identified and systematically reported through reviewingexisting guidance. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;94:46-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.007
  18. NICE. Medical technologies evaluation programme methods guide. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2017.
  19. HAS. Manufacturer's Guide. Haute Autorite de Sante; 2011.
  20. Fuchs S, Olberg B, Panteli D, Perleth M, Busse R. HTA of medical devices: Challenges and ideas for the future from a European perspective. Health Policy 2017;121:215-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.010
  21. Schnell-Inderst P, Hunger T, Condrads-Frank A, Arvandi M, Siebert U. Ten recommendations for assessing the comparative effectiveness oftherapeutic medical devices: a targeted review and adaptation. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;94:97-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.022
  22. Zannad F, Garcia MAA, Borer JS, Stough WG, Clutton-Brock T, Rosenberg Y, Packer M. Role of Payers in the Development of Cardiovascular Therapeutics. JACC 2017;70(22):2822-2830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.027