Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep;75(5):398-407.
doi: 10.1016/j.pharma.2017.01.005. Epub 2017 Mar 16.

[Economic evaluation of medical devices not included in the French list of products and services qualifying for reimbursement: Example of biologic meshes]

[Article in French]
Affiliations

[Economic evaluation of medical devices not included in the French list of products and services qualifying for reimbursement: Example of biologic meshes]

[Article in French]
A Sainfort et al. Ann Pharm Fr. 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: To present a method aimed to evaluate the economic impact associated with the use of medical devices (DM) not reimbursed in addition to diagnosis related groups (DRGs) tariffs using the example of biological meshes for parietal reinforcement.

Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included all patients who received a biological mesh between January 2010-April 2014 (University hospitals of Saint-Étienne, France) or between January 2010-March 2015 (Lyon University hospitals, France). Measured costs associated with biologic meshes were compared to those of the "Étude nationale des coûts à méthodologie commune" (2012) to weigh the economic impact of biologic meshes with the French DRGs costs. We also compared these costs to the fares perceived by the hospital from the French sickness fund (GHS).

Results: Thirty-six patients received a biological mesh and were treated by a total of 38 biological meshes. Of these, the implant was Protexa®, Permacol® and Strattice® in 66%, 29% and 5% of cases respectively. The hospitals incomes were 10,496±5562€ per stay. Meshes-related expenditures represented in average 28% of DRGs costs and 38% of GHS tariffs. The mean additional cost for biological meshes was 3793±2292 euros compared to the mean cost on implantable medical devices in the French DRGs.

Conclusion: Given their currently restricted use, the hospital budget impact of biological meshes remains limited although the incremental cost per patient is substantial. Analytic costs data can be useful within the scope of decision-making related to DM not refunded by the French health system.

Keywords: Biologic mesh; Chirurgie viscérale; Coûts hospitaliers; Dispositifs médicaux; Hospital costs; Medical devices; Prothèses biologiques; Tarification à l’activité; Visceral surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Substances

LinkOut - more resources