PubMed · 16649692
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Baruch Fischhoff. 2006. Visualizing your vulnerabilities.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16649692/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
INTRODUCTION: Previous reports (1996, 1997) have revealed that the market prices of medical materials in Japan were two to four times higher than those in the US. The Japanese government introduced the foreign price adjustment rule (FPA) in 2002 to reduce reimbursement prices in Japan. We aimed to investigate the current price differences between Japan and the US in the first half of 2005 and to evaluate the effectiveness of the FPA. METHODS: The investigation was performed at two joint purchasing organizations (JPO) and a hospital group in the US, and at a university hospital in Japan. Forty-one items in 14 categories were selected in advance. RESULTS: The price ratio (Japanese price/US price) was largest at 4.5-6.8 for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) balloon catheters and 1.4-6.0 for vascular grafts. The price ratio was smallest at 1.2-2.4 for automatic sutures, 1.4-1.6 for Swan-Ganz catheters, and 1.5-2.3 for mechanical valves. DISCUSSION: The price differences between Japan and the United States were found to have rather widened with the exception of the pacemaker, because their market prices decreased more markedly in the United States. The investigation suggests several problems with the FPA: (1) the determination process of reimbursement prices is inappropriate, which has made the Japanese market less competitive, (2) the FPA needs too much time for the resolution of price differences, and (3) price data collected according to the FPA lacks strictness. CONCLUSIONS: The high prices of medical material in Japan need to be adjusted down with more appropriate measures such as the full cost or cost inclusion methods.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The rising demand and increasing scarcity of donor oocytes in developed countries have led to some fertility clinics sourcing oocyte donors from abroad, particularly from poorer countries, in what is referred to as 'transnational' or 'international' oocyte donation. In a further new 'twist' to this scheme, frozen sperm of the recipient's male partner is exported abroad through courier mail and is used to fertilise donor oocytes in a foreign clinic to produce embryos, which are then cryopreserved and imported back by mail for transfer to the woman. There are numerous ethical concerns with regards to such means of procuring donor oocytes. First, there is an issue of exploiting economically underprivileged women in poorer countries and disproportionate gains on the part of medical doctors and fertility clinics. Second, there is a question of abdication of responsibility for the donor's welfare on the part of the fertility doctor who takes charge of the recipient's treatment abroad if oocyte donors were to develop severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Third, the issue of responsibility and accountability becomes even more contentious if congenital defects were to appear in offsprings born from transnational oocyte donation or in the case of transmission of communicable diseases such as hepatitis B, syphilis and AIDS to the recipient. Last, cost savings from the lower prescription price of fertility drugs in economically less-developed countries may not be passed down to the oocyte recipient but instead be exploited to boost the already substantial profit margin of fertility clinics and doctors.