目的: 破解医疗器械通用名与医保医用耗材通用名的关联映射难题,为“三医”数据贯通与协同治理提供参考。方法: 以植入式心脏起搏器、血管介入支架等七类高值耗材为研究对象,基于国家医保医用耗材数据库,系统剖析药监与医保不同命名体系的规则差异、实践冲突及共同属性,分析“同物不同名”“同名不同物”等问题成因。结果: “两名”在底层逻辑和分类粒度上存在差异,但命名基础信息同源、命名证据同质、命名实践协同、命名目标一致。据此提出“能配则配”的适配路径,并构建差异化映射方案。结论: “两名”关联映射具有可行性与推广价值。建议药监与医保部门搭建协同平台,实现动态映射,为耗材全生命周期管理、精准支付和跨部门治理提供技术支撑,助力中国式“三医”协同治理新范式。

Objective: The paper attempts to address the challenge of mapping between medical device generic names and medical insurance generic names for medical consumables, and to provide a reference for promoting data interconnection and collaborative governance among the three medical sectors (medical services, medical insurance, and pharmaceuticals). Methods: Taking seven categories of high-value consumables—including implantable cardiac pacemakers and vascular interventional stents—as research subjects, and based on the national medical insurance medical consumables database, we systematically analyzed the differences in rules, practical conflicts, and shared attributes between the two naming systems of healthcare security administrations and medical products administrations, and examined the root causes of issues such as “same product with different names” and “same name with different products”. Results: The study finds that although the two naming systems differ in underlying logic and classification granularity, they share common foundations in terms of homologous basic information, homogeneous evidence for naming, coordinated practices in implementation, and consistent ultimate goals. We propose a “match-when-possible” adaptation pathway and construct differentiated mapping schemes. Conclusions: The mapping between the two naming systems is feasible and has good potential for broader application. It is recommended that the medical products administrations and healthcare security administrations jointly establish a collaborative platform to enable dynamic mapping. This will provide technical support for full-life-cycle management of consumables, precision payment, and cross-departmental governance, and contribute to a new paradigm of Chinese-style collaborative governance of the three medical sectors.