Click here to download

Spending review and innovation technology in Wealth System. The case of medical device
Journal Title: RIVISTA TRIMESTRALE DI SCIENZA DELL’AMMINISTRAZIONE 
Author/s: Rosaria Spina 
Year:  2014 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  11 Pg. 95-105 FullText PDF:  842 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SA2014-001004
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The aim of the job is describing Wealth System innovation technology dynamics, for the more diffuse economic literature, in the frame of spending review policy. Particularly, because off the high sensibility for innovation process and the absorbity capacity of scientific knowledge, involved in R&D investment of the firms, medical device market is depicted as a strategic area for crossing economic interests. Lifesaving device market is a specific case study. It defines an empirical description for the trade off between spending review conception as pure spending cuts policy or, on the opposite side, as opportunity for more incisive innovation dynamics in the creation of new products with the requisites of efficacy and efficiency.
Keywords: Spending review, Wealth System, innovation technology dynamics

  1. Acs Z., Audretsh D. (1990). Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  2. Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. (2001). Market for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  3. Arrow K.J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R. (ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
  4. Austin J., Williams W.R., Hutchison S. (2009). Multidisciplinary Management of Elderly Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: Five Year Outcome Measures in Death and Survivor Groups. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, vol. 8 (1): 34-39.
  5. Borgonovi E. (2003). Tecnologie per la sanità: un modello di analisi multidimensionali. In: Borgonovi E., Manbretti C. (a cura di). Economia sanitaria e qualità della vita. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore. Borgonovi E., Fattore G., Longo F. (2009). Management delle Istituzioni Pubbliche. Milano: EGEA.
  6. Borgonovi E. (2012). Indagine conoscitiva. La sfida della tutela della salute tra nuove esigenze del sistema sanitario e obiettivi di finanza pubblica, Cergas.
  7. Brusoni M., Marsilio M. (2007). La gestione centralizzata degli approvvigionamenti nei sistemi sanitari regionali. In: Anessi Pessina E., Cantù E., L’aziendalizzazione della sanità in Italia. Rapporto OASI. Milano: EGEA.
  8. Cavallo M.C. (2008). Le tecnologie sanitarie e il loro ruolo nella tutela della salute. I dispositivi medici in una prospettiva europea. Milano: EGEA.
  9. Drummon M., Griffin A., Tarricone R. (2009). Economic evaluation for devices and drugs: same or different?. Value in Health, vol. 12 (4): 459-464.
  10. Buglione E., Cochelli G., Gorelli S., Marè M., Supino S., La spending review nell’esperienza internazionale, Formez, 2013.
  11. Maniadakis N., Vardas P., Mantovani L., Fattore G., Boriani G. (2011). Economic evaluation in cardiology. Europace, vol. 13 (2): 113-118.
  12. Markman G., Balkin D., Svhjoedt L. (2001), Governing the innovation process in entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 12 (2): 273-293.
  13. Meine M., SmithT., Hauer R. (2009). The economical challenge in the treatment of chronic heart failure: is primary prophylactic ICD therapy cost-effective in Europe? Europace, vol. 11, (6): 689-691.
  14. Pammolli F. et al. (2005). Medical devices competitiveness and impact on pubblic health expenditure. MPRA paper 16021.
  15. Pammolli F., Riccaboni M., Oglialoro C., Magazzini L., Baio G., Salerno N. (2005). Medical Devices Competitiveness and Impact on Public Health Expenditure. Pubblicato in: Entreprise Directorate-General, European Commission.
  16. Pauletti M., Bini G.C., Laurenzi F., Manfredini E., Riva U. (2004). Ottimizzazione della longevità dei pacemaker: Fattori determinanti e ruolo del follow-up. Giornale Italiano Aritmologia, vol. 7 (1): 3-12.
  17. Pisano G. (2006). Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harvard Business Review, vol. 84 (10): 114-124.
  18. Schumpeter J. (1912). Teorie der wirtshaftlichen, Berlin, Bunker und Humblat (trad. it. Teoria dello sviluppo economico. Firenze: Sansoni, 1971).
  19. Shah S.G.S., Robinson I. (2006). User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: Structured literature review. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, vol. 19 (6): 500-515.
  20. Vallejo-Torres L. et al. (2008). Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: a Bayesian approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 24 (4): 459-464.
  21. Williams D., Hourd P. (2006). Success in healthcare technology business: coordinating the value milestones of new product introduction, financial stakeholder and business growth. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practices, vol. 8 (3): 229-247

Rosaria Spina, Spending review and innovation technology in Wealth System. The case of medical device in "RIVISTA TRIMESTRALE DI SCIENZA DELL’AMMINISTRAZIONE" 1/2014, pp. 95-105, DOI:10.3280/SA2014-001004

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content