Disposable devices offer greater variety, complexity, and perhaps utility than the reusable alternatives. Most disposable accessories carry a cost burden, which may indeed be acceptable when the devices are difficult to reprocess, when they incorporate features that justify the added cost, or when their unit cost approaches purchase plus reprocessing costs for reusable alternatives, such as for biopsy forceps. The non financial benefits of reliability, sustained quality, and reduced liability may be dominant considerations in some settings or for some items. Reusable accessories tend to be cost-effective alternatives, provided reliable reprocessing facilities and processes are available and the procedural volume is adequate to make a difference. The practical decisions regarding use of disposable versus reusable accessories, or combinations of the two, require local assessment of volumes, convenience, reimbursement success, and storage and reprocessing abilities. Which approach is most cost effective for a given unit, or for an individual device, may vary depending on use patterns, volumes, and negotiated prices. Units with small volumes may prefer the ease of disposable accessories independent of relative cost issues, whereas large high-volume units may need to evaluate cost data more carefully to maintain sustainable practices.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||8|
|Journal||Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America|
|State||Published - 2000|
ASJC Scopus subject areas