Relationship Between Price and Diagnosis-Related Group Tariff for Medical Devices Assessed by a Regional Health Technology Assessment Committee

Introduction Medical devices (MDs) make up an important share of total in-hospital expenditure. At the level of individual patients, this share is represented by the ratio of the cost of MD incurred by the patient vs. the total cost of in-hospital care for the same patient. If tariffs rather than costs are considered, the denominator of this ratio is given by the diagnosis-related group (DRG) and the ratio is the cost of MD over DRG tariff. The objective of this paper is to present a retrospective analysis comparing the ratio of price vs. DRG tariff for a group of devices belonging to risk class III or active implantable. These devices are those assessed in the years 2020 and 2021 by two committees of the Tuscany region in Italy. Materials and methods The information on price and DRG was taken from the health technology assessment (HTA) reports concerning MDs evaluated by the two above-mentioned regional committees in the years 2020 and 2021. In these reports, the information on the cost-effectiveness ratio was reported for a subset of MDs. In all cases, a preliminary qualitative assessment was carried out to determine the presence or absence of a healthcare impact in the post-discharge phase. In these preliminary analyses, the perspective of NHS was adopted. Results Our analysis was focused on 24 devices of either class III or active implantable. According to our results, a wide variability was found in the ratios between device price and DRG associated with its use. This ratio ranged from a minimum of about 3% in the case of the Hyalobarrier gel (Nordic Pharma GmbH, Zürich, Switzerland) for post-surgical adhesion to a maximum of 132% in the case of the Neovasc Reducer (EPS Vascular AB, Viken, Sweden), a device indicated in the narrowed coronary sinus. Three devices, i.e., PuraStat (3-D Matrix, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS, CryoLife, Inc., Kennesaw, GA), and Tendyne (Abbott Cardiovascular, Plymouth, MN), were found to be priced more than the reimbursement tariff (i.e., ratio > 100%). Ratios between 50% and 100% were found in about half of the devices. From our preliminary assessment on the presence of a post-discharge impact, 15 devices out of 24 (62%) were found to determine a substantial impact, while the remaining nine (38%) did not. In general, when costs and benefits of a device do not extend beyond the patients’ discharge, the presence of a ratio > 100% reliably suggests the conclusion that the device price needs to be reduced and/or the tariff needs to be increased. On the other hand, in cases where the device extends its impact beyond the patient’s hospital stay, the decision of reducing price or increasing tariff becomes more complex, and so these adjustments cannot be determined unless more information on some critical aspects is made available. Conclusions Until the above-mentioned improvements do not take place, rational interventions on DRG are virtually unfeasible owing to this lack of critical information. On the other hand, it is also difficult to intervene on device prices, again owing to the lack of critical information.