Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on the Determinants of Therapeutic Materials Expenditure in National Health Insurance

주요 치료재료 품목군의 건강보험청구액 결정요인분석

  • Received : 2016.08.24
  • Accepted : 2016.11.28
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The use of therapeutic materials based on new health technology has increased in recent years in the field of medicine, raising concerns for medical practitioners regarding increased spending on the new therapeutic materials amid the rapid population ageing and increase of chronic diseases in Korea. While therapeutic materials have significant importance in the health care system, they have not been given appropriate attention in the academic world of Korea. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that affect the growth of expenditure on therapeutic materials and to derive implications for an effective management considering the diversity of therapeutic materials. Methods: Using the claims data of the National Health Insurance Services, specific utilization patterns of groups of therapeutic materials in the middle classification level of Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from 2007 to 2014 were analyzed. Four categories (J5083: drug eluting coronary stent, D0302: nonmetallic anchor, K6014: gauze, K6023: gauze) that exhibit unique patterns with respect to price and volume were selected. Then, decomposition analysis was performed to identify the largest contributor to the spending growth by dividing the products into existing, new, and abandoned products for the period between 2010 and 2013. Results: The effect of new products had larger impact on spending growth than the effect of core items in drug eluting coronary stent (J5083) and nonmetallic anchor (D0302). In addition, existing products in general included items priced relatively lower when compared with another item manufactured by the same company. In the gauze category, however, existing products had the largest impact on expenditure and the effect of volume was greater than that in other categories. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that appropriate management measures classified by the characteristics of therapeutic materials are required for therapeutic materials pricing and reassessment in Korea.

Keywords

References

  1. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. 2015 Medical expenses statistical indicators. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2015.
  2. Lee YT, Kim JE, Kim EY, Park JS, Hwang JW, Jeong SW. Study on the improvement of pricing system for medical devices. Cheongju: Korea Health Industry Development Institute, National Health Insurance Service; 2012.
  3. Choi YJ, Nam HJ, Chae JM. Research on a reasonable pricing policies for medical devices. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2015.
  4. Shin CM, Lee SM, Nam MH, Kim YE, Lee JY, Lee YJ, et al. Reasonable management plan for medical devices expenditure in NHI. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, National Health Insurance Service; 2011.
  5. Timmermans S, Berg M. The practice of medical technology. Sociol Health Illn 2003;25:97-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00342.
  6. Bae EY. Reimbursement and pricing policies for medical devices and health technology assessment. Health Welf Forum 2014;(212):26-35.
  7. Korea Health Industry Development Institute. KIMES 2016 Policy direction for health insurance [Internet]. Cheongju: Korea Health Industry Development Institute; 2016 [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.khidi.or.kr/board/view?linkId=177414&menuId=MENU00349.
  8. The Global Harmonization Task Force. Definition of the terms 'medical device' and 'in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical device [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012 [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medical_devices/definitions/en/.
  9. Choi SE, Park HY, Bae SY, Han EA, Bae EM, Ahn HT, et al. A study on policy recommendations for post-monitoring system of the medical devices. Wonju: National Health Insurance Service, Korea University Research & Business Foundation; 2014.
  10. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. 2016 Management directions for medical devices [Internet]. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2016 [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.khidi.or.kr/fileDownload?titleId=152212&fileId=2&fileDownType=C¶mMenuId=MENU00349.
  11. Choi YJ, Cho SJ, Nam HJ, Kang YJ. Policy on the price management based on the quantity of medical device. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2013.
  12. Borgonovi E, Busse R, Kanavos P. Financing medical devices in Europe: current trends and perspectives for research. Eurohealth 2008;14(3):1-3.
  13. Shuren J, Califf RM. Need for a national evaluation system for health technology. JAMA 2016;316(11):1153-1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.8708.
  14. Brown A, Meenan BJ, Young TP. Price trend analysis and its implications for the development of new medical technologies. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007;2007:5156-5159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iembs.2007.4353502.
  15. Brown A, Meenan BJ, Young TP. Marketing innovation: medical device prices follow the experience curve. J Med Mark 2007;7(3):203-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jmm.5050086.
  16. Girling AJ, Freeman G, Gordon JP, Poole-Wilson P, Scott DA, Lilford RJ. Modeling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23(2):269-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462307070365.
  17. Rogalewicz V, Ujhelyiova A, Pousek L, Sinkorova V, Kneppo P. Health technology assessment and medical devices. New York (NY): IEEE; 2011.
  18. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Therapeutic materials price list(2016.3.1).Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service;2016
  19. Lee EJ. Status and improvement tasks of arbitrary uninsured benefits. Welf Trends 2012;(165):14-17.
  20. Choi JK. Problem and improvement of health insurance reimbursement system: focusing on arbitrary uninsured benefits. Health Policy Forum 2008;6(4):91-97.
  21. Choi YJ, Chae JM, Nam HJ, Choi YM. Reimbursement decisions for the evidence-based medical device: economic evaluation guidelines. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2015.
  22. Jang SM, Pakr CM, Choi YJ, Bae GR. Analysis of determinants of inpatient pharmaceutical expenditure in NHI. Korean J Health Econ Policy 2010;16(3):115-137.
  23. Park SB, Kim DJ, Park EJ, Lee SK, Kim SW. Study on the rationalization the post-management system of medicines price. Sejong: Korea institute for Health and Social Affairs, National Health Insurance Service; 2015.
  24. Byeon JO, Kim YR, Lee JH. Population-based health insurance pharmaceutical expenditure and analysis of determinants. Wonju: National Health Insurance Service; 2015.
  25. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. The drivers of prescription drug expenditures: a methodological report. Ottawa (ON): Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; 2013.
  26. Haute Autorite de Sante. Medical device assessment in France guide book [Internet]. Saint-Denis: Haute Autorite de Sante; 2009 [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr.
  27. Private Healthcare Australia. Prostheses list [Internet]. Deakin (ACT): Private Healthcare Australia; 2016 [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.privatehealthcareaustralia.org.au/for-providers/prostheses-list.
  28. Malenka DJ, Kaplan AV, Sharp SM, Wennberg JE. Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices using Medicare claims. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24(4):928-937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.4.928.
  29. Pammolli F, Riccaboni M, Oglialoro C, Magazzini L, Baio G, Salerno N. Medical devices competitiveness and impact on public health expenditure. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2005.
  30. Beckert J. Where do prices come from?: sociological approaches to price formation. Socioecon Rev 2011;9(4):757-786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr012.