IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v10y2020i1p10-d309551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obstacles to Prosthetic Care—Legal and Ethical Aspects of Access to Upper and Lower Limb Prosthetics in Germany and the Improvement of Prosthetic Care from a Social Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Martina F. Baumann

    (Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Daniel Frank

    (Chair for Ethics, Theory and History of the Life Sciences, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Lena-Charlotte Kulla

    (Laboratory for Biomedical Microtechnology, Department of Microsystems Engineering—IMTEK, University of Freiburg, 79110 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany)

  • Thomas Stieglitz

    (Laboratory for Biomedical Microtechnology, Department of Microsystems Engineering—IMTEK, University of Freiburg, 79110 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
    BrainLinks-BrainTools, University of Freiburg, 79110 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany)

Abstract

Prosthetic technology for people with missing limbs has made great progress in recent decades. However, acceptance rates and user satisfaction are not only dependent on technical aspects, but also to a great extent on social and psychological factors. We propose that these factors should receive greater attention in order to improve prosthetic care and give recommendations how to incorporate the findings from social science in research and development (R&D) and in care practice. Limited access due to high costs of new prosthetic technology combined with rising costs in health care systems in general is a further issue we address. Our legal and ethical analysis of the reimbursement process in Germany shows that this issue requires further empirical investigation, a stakeholder dialogue and maybe even policy changes. Social science knowledge and participatory methods are of high relevance to answer questions about the benefit of prosthetics for users, based on individual needs and preferences, which should be at the core of debates on ethical resource allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina F. Baumann & Daniel Frank & Lena-Charlotte Kulla & Thomas Stieglitz, 2020. "Obstacles to Prosthetic Care—Legal and Ethical Aspects of Access to Upper and Lower Limb Prosthetics in Germany and the Improvement of Prosthetic Care from a Social Perspective," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:10-:d:309551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/1/10/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/1/10/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sullivan, Mark, 2003. "The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1595-1604, April.
    2. Marlies Ahlert & Friedrich Breyer & Lars Schwettmann, 2013. "What You Ask is What You Get: Willingness-to-Pay for a QALY in Germany," CESifo Working Paper Series 4239, CESifo.
    3. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 5-12, February.
    4. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond & for the MedtecHTA Project Group, 2017. "Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 145-152, February.
    5. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 5-12, February.
    6. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 145-152, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philip Klein & Hedwig Blommestein & Maiwenn Al & Benedetta Pongiglione & Aleksandra Torbica & Saskia de Groot, 2022. "Real‐world evidence in health technology assessment of high‐risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 10-24, September.
    2. Pedro Parreira & Liliana B. Sousa & Inês A. Marques & Paulo Santos-Costa & Sara Cortez & Filipa Carneiro & Arménio Cruz & Anabela Salgueiro-Oliveira, 2020. "Usability Assessment of an Innovative Device in Infusion Therapy: A Mix-Method Approach Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Carla Rognoni & Alessandro Furnari & Marzia Lugli & Oscar Maleti & Alessandro Greco & Rosanna Tarricone, 2023. "Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Capturing the Complexity of Healthcare Processes: The Case of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Leg Ulcers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Sopany Saing & Naomi van der Linden & Christopher Hayward & Stephen Goodall, 2019. "Why is There Discordance between the Reimbursement of High-Cost ‘Life-Extending’ Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices? The Funding of Ventricular Assist Devices in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 421-431, August.
    5. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 5-12, February.
    6. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    7. Sarri, Grammati & Freitag, Andreas & Szegvari, Boglarka & Mountian, Irina & Brixner, Diana & Bertelsen, Neil & Kaló, Zoltán & Upadhyaya, Sheela, 2021. "The Role of Patient Experience in the Value Assessment of Complex Technologies – Do HTA Bodies Need to Reconsider How Value is Assessed?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 593-601.
    8. Michael Drummond & Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Aleksandra Torbica & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Oriana Ciani & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Werner Brouwer, 2022. "Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 179-194, September.
    9. Michael Drummond & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica, 2022. "European union regulation of health technology assessment: what is required for it to succeed?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 913-915, August.
    10. Benedetta Pongiglione & Aleksandra Torbica, 2022. "How real can we get in generating real world evidence? Exploring the opportunities of routinely collected administrative data for evaluation of medical devices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 25-43, September.
    11. Tarricone, Rosanna & Amatucci, Fabio & Armeni, Patrizio & Banks, Helen & Borsoi, Ludovica & Callea, Giuditta & Ciani, Oriana & Costa, Francesco & Federici, Carlo & Torbica, Aleksandra & Marletta, Marc, 2021. "Establishing a national HTA program for medical devices in Italy: Overhauling a fragmented system to ensure value and equal access to new medical technologies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 602-608.
    12. Rucha Vadia & Tom Stargardt, 2021. "Impact of Guidelines on the Diffusion of Medical Technology: A Case Study of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in the UK," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 243-252, March.
    13. Fuchs, Sabine & Olberg, Britta & Perleth, Matthias & Busse, Reinhard & Panteli, Dimitra, 2019. "Testing a new taxonomic model for the assessment of medical devices: Is it plausible and applicable? Insights from HTA reports and interviews with HTA institutions in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 173-181.
    14. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    15. Michael Drummond & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica, 2016. "Incentivizing research into the effectiveness of medical devices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1055-1058, December.
    16. Natasa Sedlar & Mitja Lainscak & Jerneja Farkas, 2020. "Living with Chronic Heart Failure: Exploring Patient, Informal Caregiver, and Healthcare Professional Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    17. Murali Sundaram & Jan Kavookjian & Julie Patrick, 2009. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 121-133, June.
    18. Eissens van der Laan, M.R. & van Offenbeek, M.A.G. & Broekhuis, H. & Slaets, J.P.J., 2014. "A person-centred segmentation study in elderly care: Towards efficient demand-driven care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 68-76.
    19. Cho, Sun Mi & Park, Chan-ung & Song, Min, 2020. "The evolution of social health research topics: A data-driven analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    20. Peña-Longobardo, L.M. & Rodríguez-Sánchez, B. & Oliva-Moreno, J., 2021. "The impact of widowhood on wellbeing, health, and care use: A longitudinal analysis across Europe," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:10-:d:309551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.