Price Transparency and Consumer Perceptions of Generic and Brand-name Implants in Orthopaedic Surgery | ||
| The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 10، شماره 9، آذر 2022، صفحه 791-797 اصل مقاله (544.67 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2022.51855.2558 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Harrison R Miner* 1؛ James D. Slover2؛ Karl M. Koenig3 | ||
| 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK, USA | ||
| 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, Second Floor, New York, NY, USA | ||
| 3Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Background: Some have suggested the use of generic surgical implants to curb rising costs of orthopaedic care. However, there is evidence that patients are reluctant to use generic pharmaceuticals as compared to their brand name equivalents for fear of inferior quality. Public perception of the use of generic implants remains unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using Amazon MTurk to identify factors associated with a consumer preference for generic orthopaedic screws and total hip. Results: While much of the public (52%) sees the value of generic implants, fewer (26%) would prefer them in their own care. Most respondents (75%) trust their surgeon’s choice, yet the vast majority (83%) want to be informed about the cost of their implant, even if it makes no difference in what they pay. The agreement that older implants are safer than newer implants (OR 1.9 for screws; 2.5 for hip arthroplasty), and that generics are a better value than brand name implants (OR 3.0 for screws; 4.3 for hip arthroplasty) were independently associated with a preference for generics. Conclusion: The observation that many people view generic implants as being a good value, yet fewer would prefer to use them in their own care indicates that concerns over quality may initially limit utilization of generic implants. More evidence is needed to reassure most consumers of the safety and effectiveness of generic implants. Additionally, our findings demonstrate a desire for more implant price transparency when undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Level of evidence: II | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Arthroplasty؛ Cost؛ Generic؛ Implant؛ Perception؛ Value | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP, Blom AW, Sayers A, Whitehouse MR. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019;393(10172):655-663. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32531-5. 2. Sculco TP. The economics of new age arthroplasty: can we afford it? Orthopedics 2010;33(9):628. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100722-46. 3. Hemalatha Kandula, Monika Darandale, Onkar Sumant. Orthopedic Implants Market. Medical Devices & Supplies. Available at: https://www. alliedmarketresearch.com/orthopedic-implantsmarket. Accessed NOV, 2007. 4. Atrey A, Heylen S, Gosling O, Porteous MJ, Haddad FS. The manufacture of generic replicas of implants for arthroplasty of the hip and knee: is it regulated and will it save money? Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(7):892- 900. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37016. 5. Hustedt J, Goltzer O, Bohl D, Fraser J, Lara N, Spangehl M. Calculating the Cost and Risk of Comorbidities in Total Joint Arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2017;32(2):355-361.e1. doi: 10.1016/j. arth.2016.07.025. 6. Lybrand KE, Althausen PL. The Role of Value-Based Implants in Orthopedic Trauma. Orthop Clin North Am 2018;49(4):437-443. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2018.05.005. 7. Waddell JP, Morton J. Generic total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995;(311):109-16. 8. Mortensen K, Hughes TL. Comparing Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Platform to Conventional Data Collection Methods in the Health and Medical Research Literature. J Gen Intern Med 2018;33(4):533-538. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4246-0. 9. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42(2):377- 81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. 10.Shrank WH, Cox ER, Fischer MA, Mehta J, Choudhry NK. Patients’ perceptions of generic medications. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28(2):546-56. doi: 10.1377/ hlthaff.28.2.546. 11.Omojasola A, Hernandez M, Sansgiry S, Jones L. Perception of Generic Prescription Drugs and Utilization of Generic Drug Discount Programs. Ethn Dis 2012;22(4):479-85. 12.Sewell K, Andreae S, Luke E, Safford MM. Peer Reviewed: Perceptions of and Barriers to Use of Generic Medications in a Rural African American Population, Alabama, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E142. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.120010. 13.Shrank WH, Cadarette SM, Cox E, et al. Is There a Relationship Between Patient Beliefs or Communication About Generic Drugs and Medication Utilization? Med Care 2009;47(3):319-25. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818af850. 14.Shiv B, Carmon Z, Ariely D. Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of marketing Research 2005;42(4):383-93. DOI:10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.4.383 15.Rohman L, Hadi S, Whitwell G. Surgeons’ knowledge about the costs of orthopaedic implants. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2014;22(2):221-3. doi: 10.1177/230949901402200222. 16.Bozic KJS, Khaled J. Rosenberg, Aaron G. Rubash, Harry E. Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: analysis and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2004;19(2):180-9. doi: 10.1016/s0883- 5403(03)00456-x | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 434 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 308 |
||