Click here to download

Impatto del sistema di finanziamento a DRG sull’innovazione tecnologica in sanità. Il caso italiano
Journal Title: MECOSAN 
Author/s: Giuditta Callea, Aleksandra Torbica, Rosanna Tarricone 
Year:  2014 Issue: 89 Language: Italian 
Pages:  18 Pg. 31-48 FullText PDF:  774 KB
DOI:  10.3280/MESA2014-089003
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


In the last two decades the majority of Western countries adopted prospective payment schemes based on Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) for reimbursing hospital inpatient activity. Such payment schemes may play a relevant role in the adoption of new medical devices: each time a new devices comes to the market, decisions on its adoption rely on evaluations on the subsequent increase in costs and added therapeutic value. The goal of this research is (i) to identify, in a sample of Italian regions, the characteristics of regional reimbursement systems based on DRGs relevant for uptake and diffusion of new technologies, describing the updating mechanisms of DRG codes and rates that allow technological innovation to be formally incorporated in the reimbursement system and identifying alternative payment mechanisms developed with the aim of incentivize innovation; and (ii) to investigate the key-informants’ opinions and perceptions on the role of financing mechanisms based on DRG tariffs on the adoption and diffusion of medical devices in Italian hospitals.
Keywords: Technological innovation, diffusion, DRG

  1. Barnum H., Kutzin J., Saxenian H. (1995). Incentives and provider payment methods. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 10: 23-45., DOI: 10.1002/hpm.4740100104
  2. Bartoli S., Cantù E. (2009). Le analisi dei costi per la determinazione delle tariffe: esperienze regionali a confronto. In: Anessi Pessina E., Cantù E. (a cura di). L’aziendalizzazione della sanita in Italia. Rapporto OASI 2009. Milano: Egea.
  3. Busse R., Geissler A., Quentin W. et al. (2011). Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe: Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency, and Quality in Hospitals. New York: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
  4. Busse R., Schreyögg J., Smith P.C. (2006). Editorial: hospital case payment systems in Europe. Health Care Management Science, 9: 211-213., DOI: 10.1007/s10729-006-9039-7
  5. Cantù E., Carbone C., Anessi Pessina E. (2011). Do Italian Regions effectively use DRG funding to steer provider behavior? In: Ongaro E., Massey A., Holzer M., Wayenberg E. (eds.). Policy, Performance and management in Governance and Intergovernmental relations: Transatlantic perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  6. Cappellaro G., Fattore G., Torbica A. (2009). Funding health technologies in decentralized systems: A comparison between Italy and Spain. Health Policy, 92: 313-321., DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.05.004
  7. Cappellaro G., Ghislandi S., Anessi Pessina E. (2011). Diffusion of medical technology: The role of financing. Health Policy, 100 (1): 51-59., DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.004
  8. Ciani O., Tarricone R., Torbica A. (2012). Diffusion and use of Health Technology Assessment in policy making: what lessons for decentralized healthcare systems? Health Policy, 108: 194-202., DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.017
  9. Clyde A.T., Bockstedt L., Farkas J.A. et al. (2008). Experience with Medicare’s new technology addon payment program. Health Affairs, 27: 1632-1641., DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1632
  10. Congressional Budget Office (2008). Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending. Washington DC: CBO, Congress of the USA.
  11. Coulam R.F., Gaumer G.L. (1991). Medicare’s prospective payment system: a critical appraisal. Health Care Financing Review, 13: 45-77.
  12. Cutler D.M. (1995). The Incidence of Adverse Medical Outcomes Under Prospective Payment. Econometrica, 63 (1): 29-50., DOI: 10.2307/2951696
  13. Cutler D.M. (2007). The lifetime costs and benefits of medical technology. Journal of Health Economics, 26: 1081-1100., DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.09.003
  14. Cutler D.M., McClellan M. (2001). Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Affairs, 20: 11-29., DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.11
  15. Di Matteo L. (2005). The macro determinants of health expenditure in the United States and Canada: Assessing the impact of income, age distribution and time. Health Policy, 71: 23-42., DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.05.007
  16. Greenhalgh T., Roberts G., MacFarlane F. et al. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82: 581-629., DOI: 10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x
  17. Henschke C., Baumler M., Weid S. et al. (2010). Extrabudgetary (“NUB“) payments: a gateway for introducing new medical devices into the German inpatient reimbursement system? Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare, 3: 119-133., DOI: 10.1179/175330310x12665793931221
  18. Kesteloot K., Voet N. (1998). Incentives for cooperation in quality among hospitals – the impact of
  19. the reimbursement systems. Journal of Health Economics, 17: 701-728., DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(98)00026-5
  20. MedPAC (2010). Aligning Incentives in Medicare. Washington, DC.
  21. Mowatt G., Bower D.J., Brebner J.A. et al. (1997). When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technology Assessment, 1: 1-149., DOI: 10.3310/hta1140
  22. Newhouse J.P. (1992). Medical Care Costs: How Much Welfare Loss? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6 (3): 3-21., DOI: 10.1257/jep.6.3.3
  23. Peden E.A., Freeland M.S. (1995). A historical analysis of medical spending growth, 1960-1993. Health Affairs, 14 (2): 235-247., DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.14.2.235
  24. Scheller-Kreinsen D., Quentin W., Busse R. (2011). DRG-based hospital payment systems and technological innovation in 12 European countries. Value in Health, 14 (8): 1166-1172., DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.07.001
  25. Schreyögg J., Baumler M., Busse R. (2009). Balancing adoption and affordability of medical devices in Europe. Health Policy, 92: 218-24., DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.03.016
  26. Shin C., Berliner E. (2008). Diffusion of new technology and payment policies: coronary stents. Health Affairs, 27: 1566-1576., DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1566
  27. Sorenson C., Drummond M., Khan B.B. (2013). Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship. Clinical Economics and Outcomes Research, 5: 223-224., DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s39634
  28. Tamborini V., Petrarca G., Glorioso V. (2012). I sistemi tariffari per le prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera. Un esame della normativa nazionale e regionale. Terzo aggiornamento, Analisi, 16.
  29. Tarricone R. (2010). Finanziamento e rimborso dei dispositivi medici in Italia. In: Tarricone R. (a cura di). Innovazione e competitività nei settori regolati. Le imprese dei dispositivi medici. Milano: Egea.
  30. Tarricone R. (a cura di) (2012), Politiche per la salute e scelte aziendali. Impatto sull’innovazione e
  31. diffusione delle tecnologie mediche. Milano: Egea.
  32. Tarricone R., Torbica A. (2012). Costing and performance in healthcare management. In: Faltin F.W., Kenett R.S., Ruggeri F. (a cura di). Statistical methods in healthcare. UK: Wiley.
  33. Torbica A., Cappellaro G. (2010). Uptake and diffusion of medical technology innovation in Europe: What role for funding and procurement policies? Journal of Medical Marketing, 10 (1): 61-9., DOI: 10.1057/jmm.2009.48
  34. Weisbrod B.A. (1991). The health care quadrilemma: an essay on technological change, insurance, quality of care and cost containment. Journal of Economic Literature, 29: 523-32.

Giuditta Callea, Aleksandra Torbica, Rosanna Tarricone, in "MECOSAN" 89/2014, pp. 31-48, DOI:10.3280/MESA2014-089003

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content