How do medical device manufacturers' websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (1):61-77 (2012)
|Abstract||While every health care system stakeholder would seem to be concerned with obtaining the greatest value from a given technology, there is often a disconnect in the perception of value between a technology’s promoters and those responsible for the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pay for it. Adopting an empirical ethics approach, this paper examines how five Canadian medical device manufacturers, via their websites, frame the corporate “value proposition” of their innovation and seek to respond to what they consider the key expectations of their customers. Our analysis shows that the manufacturers’ framing strategies combine claims that relate to valuable socio-technical goals and features such as prevention, efficiency, sense of security, real-time feedback, ease of use and flexibility, all elements that likely resonate with a large spectrum of health care system stakeholders. The websites do not describe, however, how the innovations may impact health care delivery and tend to obfuscate the decisional trade-offs these innovations represent from a health care system perspective. Such framing strategies, we argue, tend to bolster physicians’ and patients’ expectations and provide a large set of stakeholders with powerful rhetorical tools that may influence the health policy arena. Because these strategies are difficult to counter given the paucity of evidence and its limited use in policymaking, establishing sound collective health care priorities will require solid critiques of how certain kinds of medical devices may provide a better (i.e., more valuable) response to health care needs when compared to others.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Pythagoras Petratos (2005). Does the Private Finance Initiative Promote Innovation in Health Care? The Case of the British National Health Service. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (6):627 – 642.
Sue Ross, Charles Weijer, Amiram Gafni, Ariel Ducey, Carmen Thompson & Rene Lafreniere (2010). Ethics, Economics and the Regulation and Adoption of New Medical Devices: Case Studies in Pelvic Floor Surgery. BMC Medical Ethics 11 (1):14-.
Alex Rajczi (2007). A Critique of the Innovation Argument Against a National Health Program. Bioethics 21 (6):316–323.
Larry R. Churchill (1999). The United States Health Care System Under Managed Care: How the Commodification of Health Care Distorts Ethics and Threatens Equity. Health Care Analysis 7 (4):393-411.
Robert A. Pearlman (1992). An Ethical Framework for Rationing Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (1).
Ren-Zong Qiu (1989). Equity and Public Health Care in China. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (3):283-287.
Norman Daniels (1985). Just Health Care. Cambridge University Press.
Jane Stein (1978). Making Medical Choices: Who is Responsible? Houghton Mifflin.
Madison Powers (1997). Managed Care: How Economic Incentive Reforms Went Wrong. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (4):353-360.
Lisa H. Newton (1982). Collective Responsibility in Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (1):11-22.
Elin Palm (2013). Who Cares? Moral Obligations in Formal and Informal Care Provision in the Light of ICT-Based Home Care. Health Care Analysis 21 (2):171-188.
Gavin H. Mooney & Alistair McGuire (eds.) (1988). Medical Ethics and Economics in Health Care. Oxford University Press.
J. Warren Salmon (1987). The Medical Profession and the Corporatization of the Health Sector. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 8 (1).
Erik Gustavsson (forthcoming). From Needs to Health Care Needs. Health Care Analysis:1-14.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-01-17
Total downloads1 ( #274,830 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?