Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-s4lzp Total loading time: 0.213 Render date: 2022-07-07T00:30:18.978Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

Fiona A. Miller*
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
Pascale Lehoux
Affiliation:
Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, Institute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM)
Stuart Peacock
Affiliation:
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC) and Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University
Valeria E. Rac
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre
Jeff Neukomm
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
Carolyn Barg
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
Jessica P. Bytautas
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
Murray Krahn
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA)
*
Author for correspondence: Fiona A. Miller, E-mail: fiona.miller@utoronto.ca

Abstract

Objectives

Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task.

Methods

We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions.

Results

GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; “total cost” was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier.

Conclusions

Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.

Type
Policy
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Graves, K (2011) Global best practices in medical device procurement--A road map to system success. J Med Market 11, 101108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Montgomery, K (2007) Schneller E. Hospitals' strategies for orchestrating selection of physician preference items. Millbank Q 85, 307335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Arshoff, L, Henshall, C, Juzwishin, D, et al. (2012) Procurement change in Canada: An opportunity for improving system performance. Healthc Manage Forum 25, 6669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kastanioti, C, Kontodimopoulos, N, Stasinopoulos, D, et al. (2013) Public procurement of health technologies in Greece in an era of economic crisis. Health Policy 109, 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Meehan, J, Menzies, L, Michaelides, R (2017) The long shadow of public policy: Barriers to a value-based approach in healthcare procurement. J Purch Supply Manage. 23, 229241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Callea, G, Armeni, P, Marsilio, M, et al. (2017) The impact of HTA and procurement practices on the selection and prices of medical devices. Soc Sci Med 174, 8995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Sorenson, C, Kanavos, P (2011) Medical technology procurement in Europe: A cross-country comparison of current practice and policy. Health Policy 100, 4350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Robinson, J (2008) Value-based purchasing for medical devices. Health Affairs (Millwood) 27, 15231531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Poder, TG (2017) Using the health technology assessment toolbox to facilitate procurement: The case of smart pumps in a Canadian hospital. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33, 5462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Trippoli, S, Caccese, E, Marinai, C, et al. (2018) Value-based procurement of medical devices: Application to devices for mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 166, 6165.10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Arrowsmith, S, Linarelli, J, Wallace, D (2000) Regulation public procurement--National and international perspectives. Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
12.Lian, P, Laing, A (2004) Public sector purchasing of health services: A comparison with private sector purchasing. J Purch Supply Manage 10, 247256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Healthcare Supply Chain Network (2012) RFP Health Goods. Common Tendering and Contracting Templates.Google Scholar
14.Nollet, J, Beaulieu, M (2003) The development of group purchasing: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. J Purch Supply Manage 9, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Leather, R, Gardner, M, Green, M, et al. (2013) Charting a course for cardiac electrophysiology training in Canada: The vital role of fellows in advanced cardiovascular care. Can j Cardiol. 29, 15271530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Karjalainen, K, Kemppainen, K (2008) The involvement of small- and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement: Impact of resource perceptions, electronic systems and enterprise size. J Purch Supply Manage. 14, 230240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Garfield, S, Zack, L (2015) User experience a novel, but critical element in payer and purchaser value analysis of medical Technologies. Value Health 18, A48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Lingg, M, Merida-Herrera, E, Wyss, K, et al. (2017) Attitudes of orthopedic specialists toward effects of medical device purchasing. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33, 4653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Bröchner, J, Camén, C, Eriksson, H, et al. (2016) Quality and legal aspects in public care procurement. TQM J. 28, 648663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, et al. (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for healthcare decision making--an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 19, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Marsh, K, Ijzerman, M, Thokala, P, et al. (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for healthcare decision making--emerging good practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 19, 125137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B (2007) Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23, 916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Marsh, K, Ganz, M, Hsu, J, et al. (2016) Expanding health technology assessments to include effects on the environment. Value Health 19, 249254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Bryan, S, Mitton, C, Donaldson, C (2014) Breaking the addiction to technology adoption. Health Econ 23, 379383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *