Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T04:25:39.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delayed Patient Access to Innovative Medical Technologies in South Korea: A Lead-Time Analysis of Reimbursement Coverage Determinations

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2019

Sang-Soo Lee Open the ORCID record for Sang-Soo Lee [Opens in a new window] ,
Jae-Eun Myung  and
Liesl Strachan
Sang-Soo Lee*
Affiliation:
Graduate School for Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST (Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Science & Technology), Sung Kyun Kwan University Medtronic Korea Ltd.
Jae-Eun Myung
Affiliation:
Medtronic Korea Ltd.
Liesl Strachan
Affiliation:
Global Health Policy, Reimbursement and Health Economics, Medtronic Australasia Pty Ltd
*
Author for correspondence: Sang-Soo Lee, E-mail: sang.soo.lee@medtronic.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Timely access to innovative medical technologies driven by accelerated patient access pathways can substantially improve the health outcomes of patients who often have few therapeutic alternatives. We analyzed lead-times for the medical procedure reimbursement coverage process undertaken in South Korea from 2014 to 2017, which is considered one of the most important factors contributing to delays in patient access to new medical technologies.

Methods

This analysis was performed using the open datasets source of “Medical Procedure Expert Evaluation Committee (MPEEC)” meeting results and medical procedure coverage application information published on the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Web site.

Results

From 2014 to 2017, 90 percent of all new coverage determinations took on average >250 days with almost 20 percent taking more than 2 years (>750 days), The average lead-time from the medical procedure coverage application to MPEEC meeting in 2015 was 435.0 ± 214.7 days (n = 26), which was significantly shorter than the average lead-time in 2014 (624.9 ± 290.3 days, n = 16) (p < .05). The average lead-time from application to official enforcement in 2015 was significantly shorter than that of 2014 (540.8 ± 217.4; n = 16 versus 734.1 ± 299.7 days; n = 26, respectively) (p < .05).

Conclusions

While this analysis showed a general trend of a reduction in the time taken to receive a positive coverage determination for a new medical technology, the average lead-time remains well over the government mandated 100 days. To continue this trend and further enhance the patient access pathway for medical procedure coverage determinations, some measures can be applied. In particular, the extended “One-Stop Service” program encompassing coverage determinations is one such recommendation that could be considered.

Keywords

medical technologycoveragelead-timepatient accessSouth Korea
Type
Method
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , 2019 , pp. 229 - 236
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.Lee, SS, Salole, E (2014) Medical device reimbursement coverage and pricing rules in Korea: Current practice and issues with access to innovation. Value Health 17, 476-481.Google Scholar
2.Korea Medical Devices Industry Association (KMDIA) (2017) Opinion letter to Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW) about delayed coverage determination lead-time for new medical technologies. March 3, 2017.Google Scholar
3.Lee, SS (2017) Policy research on holistic patient access processes of medical devices in South Korea. Doctorate thesis. http://dl.nanet.go.kr/SearchDetailView.do?cn=KDMT1201734545_1.Google Scholar
4.Ministry of Government Legislation (2019) Regulations on criteria for national health insurance medical care benefits; article 10 and 11. http://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?tabMenuId=tab18&query=%EA%B1%B4%EA%B0%95%EB%B3%B4%ED%97%98%EB%B2%95#undefined.Google Scholar
5.Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (2018) Workplans in 2018. http://www.mfds.go.kr/brd/m_99/view.do?seq=40350.Google Scholar
6.Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (2018) Report on the results of regulatory approval consultation service for new medical devices, etc. Osong: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.Google Scholar
7.Richardson, E (2018) Aligning FDA and CMS review: Recent initiatives have sought to close gaps between the two federal agencies’ medical technology evaluation processes. Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20150827.132391/full/.Google Scholar
8.National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (2017) 10 Years History of New Health Technology Assessment. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency Publisher.Google Scholar
9.Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (2018) Medical device regulatory approval report in 2016. http://www.mfds.go.kr/brd/m_386/view.do?seq=27600.Google Scholar
10.Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018) Global market entry through the improvement of drug pricing and expedited commercialization of medical devices. http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0403&page=122&CONT_SEQ=333335.Google Scholar
11.Wang, SV, Schneeweiss, S, Berger, ML, et al. (2017) Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0. Value Health 20, 1009-1022.Google Scholar
12.Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (2018) https://www.hira.or.kr/.Google Scholar
13.Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (2018) Medical institution business portal. https://biz.hira.or.kr/index.do?sso=ok.Google Scholar
14.Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (2018) Medical device approval process. http://www.mfds.go.kr/eng/index.do?nMenuCode=135.Google Scholar
15.Basu, S, Hassenplug, JC (2012) Patient access to medical devices — A comparison of U.S. and European review processes. N Engl J Med 367, 485-488.Google Scholar
16.Lee, SS (2014) Medical technology development and globalization: The role of the medical device industry. J Korean Med Assoc 57, 919-926.Google Scholar
17.Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018) High-priced drugs such as targeted cancer drugs are expanded for coverage. http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0403&CONT_SEQ=290962&page=1.Google Scholar
18.Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018) Notification of draft legislation on the revised enforcement regulation and notices for drug pricing system improvement. http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0403&CONT_SEQ=315539&page=1.Google Scholar
19.Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018) Press release on costly anti-cancer drug benefit coverages. http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0404&CONT_SEQ=338892&page=1.Google Scholar
20.Korean Society of Medical Oncology (2018) Current situation of cancer treatment benefit coverage in South Korea. http://www.ksmo.or.kr/file/cancer_2016.pdf.Google Scholar
21.Lee, SS, Holbrook, R, Choi, HS (2018) Moon care and preliminary benefit program in South Korea: Innovative strategies in post-market evidence generation for medical devices. J Health Tech Assess 6, 33-42.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lee et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Lee et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22.8 KB