THE INTERDISCIPLINARITY OF EFFICIENT MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION PROCESS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53477/2668-2028-21-41Keywords:
Keywords: medical equipment; acquisition; efficiency; value; cost; life cycle.Abstract
Abstract: In the context of increasing healthcare demand, as a result of an aging population, and current budgetary constraints, as a result of reduced public resources, the decision to invest in efficient medical equipment is a challenge for most health facilities, constantly concerned with promoting innovative and sustainable solutions, as well as results-based ones, in order to increase the value of health technologies and the overall benefits of patients. In order to achieve the balance between safety, quality, costs and benefits and the realization of the best value of medical equipment, the decision-making process requires a multilateral evaluation of financial, clinical and social impact instruments, represented by relevant profitability, life cycle costs, results delivered and overall productivity. In the case of procurement of medical equipment, the lowest price of an economic offer is not an award criterion that strictly reflects the value or efficiency of the technology and departmental procurement structures must include in the evaluation strategies and complementary factors to the process, to add value to the medical organization.
References
2. ***, Hotărârea nr. 395/2016 din 2 iunie 2016 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de aplicare a prevederilor referitoare la atribuirea contractului de achiziţie publică/acordului-cadru din Legea nr. 98/2016 privind achiziţiile publice, publicată în Monitorul Oficial nr. 423 din 16 iunie 2016, Guvernul României, București, 2016;
3. ***, Studiu privind efectul de captivitate (lock-in) în sectoarele sensibile în domeniul achizițiilor publice, IT și echipamente/aparatură medicală, Consiliul Concurenței, București, 2019.
4. ***, Directiva 2014/24/UE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 26 februarie 2014 privind achizițiile publice și de abrogare a Directivei 2004/18/CE, European Union, Brussels, 2016.
5. European Commission, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, Brussels, 2015.
6. United Nations Office for Project Services, Procurement Manual, Organization of Procurement, New York, 2019.
7. World Health Organization, Medical devices technical series, Procurement Process Resource Guide, Geneva, 2011.
8. World Health Organization, User Guide, WHO Technical Specification for Medical Devices, Geneva, 2014.
9. The World Bank, Procurement Guidance, Medical Diagnostic Imaging (MDI) Equipment – Understading how to procure Medical Diagnostic Imaging equipment, Washington, 2019;
10. Keith Wilson, Keith Ison, Slavik Tabakov, Medical Equipment Management, CRC Press – Taylor&Francis Group, LLC, USA, 2014
11. Arianna Gamba, Dorota Napierska, and Maja Milkowska, Guidelines for the procurement of safer medical devices, Healthcare Without Harm Europe, Brussels, Belgium, 2020;
12. K. Bastidas, O. Bermdez, F.M. Obando, Process of Acquisition and Renovation of Biomedical Technology, Revista Ingineria Biomedica, vol 11, 2017;
13. GE Healthcare, Project Implementation Guide for CT, PET/CT, X-Ray, and Nuclear Systems, USA, 2017;
14. http://anap.gov.ro;
15. https://ec.europa.eu/tools/eudamed;
16. http://safermedicaldevices.org;
17. https://www.greenhospitals.net;
18. https://www.ebme.co.uk.
