Most MedTech companies don’t have a pricing problem. They have a willingness-to-pay problem.
Because while pricing decisions are often backed by internal assumptions, competitor benchmarks, or cost structures, the reality is this:
Very few companies truly understand what their customers are actually willing to pay — and more importantly, why.
At IDR Medical, through years of medical device pricing research, we see the same issue repeatedly. Pricing is often set too late, based on incomplete evidence, and without fully capturing the complexity of how decisions are made in healthcare.
And healthcare is not a simple market. You’re not pricing to a single “customer” — you’re navigating:
• Clinicians (focused on outcomes and usability)
• Procurement (focused on cost and value justification)
• Finance (focused on budgets and ROI)
Measuring willingness-to-pay in this environment requires more than a single question or a simple survey. It requires the right methodology.
One of the biggest mistakes in willingness to pay healthcare research is treating price as a standalone question. “Would you pay €X for this?” It sounds logical. It’s also fundamentally flawed.
Because in reality, no one evaluates price in isolation. They evaluate:
• Clinical benefit vs alternatives
• Workflow impact
• Risk and familiarity
• Budget constraints
• Strength of evidence
In other words, price is always a trade-off.
If your research doesn’t reflect that, your pricing won’t reflect reality either.
There is no single “best” method. The right approach depends on your objective, stage of development, and complexity of the decision. Here’s how the main approaches actually work in practice:
Conjoint analysis is the most robust approach for measuring willingness-to-pay in complex MedTech markets. Why? Because it forces respondents to make trade-offs.
Participants are asked to choose between different product configurations, where attributes such as:
• Clinical performance
• Features
• Service
• Brand
• Price
This allows you to quantify:
• What truly drives decision-making
• How much value is placed on each feature
• The implicit willingness-to-pay for improvements
In our experience, conjoint is particularly powerful when:
• Multiple stakeholders are involved
• Products are differentiated
• Pricing decisions are strategic
It reflects reality far better than direct questioning — because it mirrors how decisions are actually made.
Gabor-Granger is a more direct approach to measuring price sensitivity. Respondents are shown a concept and asked: “Would you purchase at this price?”
Prices are varied to identify:
• Maximum acceptable price
• Price-response curves
• Revenue optimisation points
This method works well when:
• You have a clearly defined product
• The product or service is fixed (i.e. we don't need to consider different product variants or future scenarios)
• Simplicity and speed are important
However, it has limitations. It does not fully capture trade-offs, and responses can be influenced by stated intent rather than real behaviour.
Van Westendorp (Price Sensitivity Meter) is often used early in development. It asks four key questions:
• At what price is the product too cheap?
• At what price is it a bargain?
• At what price is it getting expensive?
• At what price is it too expensive?
This defines a price corridor rather than a precise price point.
It is useful for:
• Early-stage concepts
• Establishing broad pricing boundaries
• Sanity-checking assumptions
But it is generally not used in isolation for pricing decisions — particularly in complex healthcare environments.
In many MedTech projects, a single method is not enough. We often see value in combining approaches, for example:
• Conjoint + Gabor-Granger → deep trade-offs + price validation
• Segmentation + pricing → understanding how willingness-to-pay varies by customer type
• Qualitative + quantitative → uncovering why behind the numbers
Other approaches can also add value:
• Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE) (advanced conjoint frameworks)
• Menu-based pricing simulations (for complex product/service bundles)
• Scenario-based pricing (e.g. different reimbursement or care pathways)
The key is designing research that reflects the real decision context — not an artificial one.
A critical challenge in medical device pricing strategy is that willingness-to-pay is not owned by a single stakeholder.
Clinicians may value:
• Improved outcomes
• Ease of use
• Reduced complications
Procurement teams focus on:
• Budget impact
• Cost-effectiveness
• Contract structures
And increasingly, decisions are made through:
• Value Analysis Committees (VACs)
• Multi-stakeholder evaluation processes
This means your pricing research must capture:
• Different perspectives
• Different value drivers
• Different thresholds
Because the final decision is a negotiated outcome — not an individual preference.
Willingness-to-pay is not just about setting a number. It informs:
• Product design and feature prioritisation
• Value proposition and messaging
• Go-to-market strategy
• Commercial forecasts and business cases
At IDR Medical, our approach to medical device market research and pricing strategy is built around this principle — generating robust, decision-ready evidence that reflects how healthcare markets actually work.
If your pricing research doesn’t reflect real-world decision-making, your pricing won’t either.
And in today’s MedTech environment, that’s a risk most companies can’t afford to take.
Explore our approaches to:
• Medical device pricing research
• Van Westendorp (Price Sensitivity Meter)
Or get in touch to discuss how we can support your next pricing decision.