{"title":"日本经皮冠状动脉介入治疗技术费用的适宜性","authors":"Satoru Hashimoto , Yoshihiro Motozawa , Burt Cohen , Toshiki Mano","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2025.101026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>In Japan, reimbursements of technical fees for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not considered to reflect actual medical costs, since medical procedures frequently cost hospitals more than they make. This study evaluated the appropriateness of PCI technical fees in Japan as part of reimbursed medical fees.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We estimated the PCI technical fee’s validity from three approaches including 1) costing calculation, 2) survey-based cost estimation, and 3) lost profit methods.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For the costing calculation method, we used the draft proposal that is evaluated by the Japanese Health Insurance Federation for Surgery (Gaihoren draft proposal). The proposal indicated PCI technical fees of ¥727,997 for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ¥596,397 for unstable angina (UA). For the survey-based cost estimation method, a survey of cardiologists showed the appropriateness of ¥814,600 and ¥554,825 for AMI-PCI and UA-PCI, respectively, while the lost profit method evaluated AMI-PCI at ¥812,210 and UA-PCI at ¥773,961. The average costs of technical fees calculated according to the three approaches were ¥772,186 for AMI-PCI and ¥566,688 for UA-PCI, which are higher than the existing reimbursements of ¥343,800 and ¥243,800, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The present study showed that technical fees for PCI did not reflect estimated costs in three approaches. The majority of hospitals in Japan are operating at a loss for medical profit, and these results call into question, the need for a review of the healthcare costs reimbursed by the government.</div></div><div><h3>Lay summary</h3><div>In Japan, reimbursement prices of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technical fees are considered to be lower than the actual cost, which can translate to losses for hospitals, especially when complex PCI procedures are performed. We estimated the appropriateness of technical fees using three approaches including 1) costing calculation, 2) survey-based cost estimation, and 3) lost profit methods. The results confirmed that technical fees, which form the core of medical fees, do not reflect estimated costs. It was suggested that this discrepancy has led to a deficit in the structure of Japanese hospitals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":"14 3","pages":"Article 101026"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appropriateness of the percutaneous coronary intervention technical fee in Japan\",\"authors\":\"Satoru Hashimoto , Yoshihiro Motozawa , Burt Cohen , Toshiki Mano\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hlpt.2025.101026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>In Japan, reimbursements of technical fees for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not considered to reflect actual medical costs, since medical procedures frequently cost hospitals more than they make. This study evaluated the appropriateness of PCI technical fees in Japan as part of reimbursed medical fees.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We estimated the PCI technical fee’s validity from three approaches including 1) costing calculation, 2) survey-based cost estimation, and 3) lost profit methods.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For the costing calculation method, we used the draft proposal that is evaluated by the Japanese Health Insurance Federation for Surgery (Gaihoren draft proposal). The proposal indicated PCI technical fees of ¥727,997 for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ¥596,397 for unstable angina (UA). For the survey-based cost estimation method, a survey of cardiologists showed the appropriateness of ¥814,600 and ¥554,825 for AMI-PCI and UA-PCI, respectively, while the lost profit method evaluated AMI-PCI at ¥812,210 and UA-PCI at ¥773,961. The average costs of technical fees calculated according to the three approaches were ¥772,186 for AMI-PCI and ¥566,688 for UA-PCI, which are higher than the existing reimbursements of ¥343,800 and ¥243,800, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The present study showed that technical fees for PCI did not reflect estimated costs in three approaches. The majority of hospitals in Japan are operating at a loss for medical profit, and these results call into question, the need for a review of the healthcare costs reimbursed by the government.</div></div><div><h3>Lay summary</h3><div>In Japan, reimbursement prices of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technical fees are considered to be lower than the actual cost, which can translate to losses for hospitals, especially when complex PCI procedures are performed. We estimated the appropriateness of technical fees using three approaches including 1) costing calculation, 2) survey-based cost estimation, and 3) lost profit methods. The results confirmed that technical fees, which form the core of medical fees, do not reflect estimated costs. It was suggested that this discrepancy has led to a deficit in the structure of Japanese hospitals.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy and Technology\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 101026\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883725000541\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883725000541","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Appropriateness of the percutaneous coronary intervention technical fee in Japan
Objectives
In Japan, reimbursements of technical fees for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not considered to reflect actual medical costs, since medical procedures frequently cost hospitals more than they make. This study evaluated the appropriateness of PCI technical fees in Japan as part of reimbursed medical fees.
Methods
We estimated the PCI technical fee’s validity from three approaches including 1) costing calculation, 2) survey-based cost estimation, and 3) lost profit methods.
Results
For the costing calculation method, we used the draft proposal that is evaluated by the Japanese Health Insurance Federation for Surgery (Gaihoren draft proposal). The proposal indicated PCI technical fees of ¥727,997 for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ¥596,397 for unstable angina (UA). For the survey-based cost estimation method, a survey of cardiologists showed the appropriateness of ¥814,600 and ¥554,825 for AMI-PCI and UA-PCI, respectively, while the lost profit method evaluated AMI-PCI at ¥812,210 and UA-PCI at ¥773,961. The average costs of technical fees calculated according to the three approaches were ¥772,186 for AMI-PCI and ¥566,688 for UA-PCI, which are higher than the existing reimbursements of ¥343,800 and ¥243,800, respectively.
Conclusion
The present study showed that technical fees for PCI did not reflect estimated costs in three approaches. The majority of hospitals in Japan are operating at a loss for medical profit, and these results call into question, the need for a review of the healthcare costs reimbursed by the government.
Lay summary
In Japan, reimbursement prices of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technical fees are considered to be lower than the actual cost, which can translate to losses for hospitals, especially when complex PCI procedures are performed. We estimated the appropriateness of technical fees using three approaches including 1) costing calculation, 2) survey-based cost estimation, and 3) lost profit methods. The results confirmed that technical fees, which form the core of medical fees, do not reflect estimated costs. It was suggested that this discrepancy has led to a deficit in the structure of Japanese hospitals.
期刊介绍:
Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments.
HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology.
Topics covered by HPT will include:
- Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems
- Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches
- National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives
- Cross-border eHealth including health tourism
- The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare
- Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies
- Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies
- Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making
- Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in)
- Regulation and health economics