Financial Impact of Dual Vendor, Matrix Pricing, and Sole-Source Contracting on Implant Costs.
case_series · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 27870673.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Implant costs comprise the largest proportion of operating room supply costs for orthopedic trauma care. Over the years, hospitals have devised several methods of controlling these costs with the help of physicians. With increasing economic pressure, these negotiations have a tremendous ability to decrease the cost of trauma care. In the past, physicians have taken no responsibility for implant pricing which has made cost control difficult. The reasons have been multifactorial. However, industry surgeon consulting fees, research support, and surgeon comfort with certain implant systems have played a large role in slowing adoption of cost-control measures. With the advent of physician gainsharing and comanagement agreements, physicians now have impetus to change. At our facility, we have used 3 methods for cost containment since 2009: dual vendor, matrix pricing, and sole-source contracting. Each has been increasingly successful, resulting in massive savings for the institution. This article describes the process and benefits of each model.
Medical subject headings
- Commerce
- Contract Services
- Cost Control
- Economic Competition
- Health Care Costs
- Orthopedic Equipment
- Prostheses and Implants