96

Introduction: Why Netherlands Surgical Reimbursement Works Differently

Securing Netherlands surgical reimbursement is unlike any other European market. The Dutch system links reimbursement directly to minimum-volume standards, hospital authorisation, and insurer contracting rules all of which determine whether a procedure can be performed and whether a MedTech product can be adopted. For MedTech companies, understanding these structural rules is essential for winning reimbursement.

The Netherlands uses a scientifically validated model in which high-risk surgery must be centralised in high-volume hospitals. These rules are not advisory; they directly shape MedTech market access. If a hospital is not authorised under Dutch minimum-volume standards, it cannot perform the surgery and therefore cannot adopt or be reimbursed for your technology.

What has changed recently in the Netherlands (2024–2025)

Since late 2024, the Dutch reimbursement environment for surgical MedTech has evolved in ways that reinforce, rather than contradict, the strategic approach outlined in this article. Policymakers and payers have continued to move away from binary reimbursement decisions and towards structured, conditional adoption models, particularly for innovative surgical technologies where early clinical value is evident but mature health economic data is still developing.

In practice, this means there is now greater system acceptance that medical devices may enter clinical use alongside formal evidence generation, provided they are deployed within appropriate hospital structures, supported by clearly defined evaluation protocols, and aligned with national decision-making bodies. For MedTech innovators, this places even greater importance on early pathway design, site selection, and payer-aware evidence planning.

Minimum-Volume Standards: The Core of Dutch Surgical Reimbursement

Dutch surgical reimbursement is heavily influenced by minimum-volume standards for procedures such as pancreatic surgery, oesophageal cancer surgery, vascular surgery, congenital cardiac care, and neonatal intensive care. These standards are grounded in evidence showing improved survival and fewer complications when operations are concentrated in high-volume centres.

Because of this, the eligible market for MedTech devices in Dutch surgery is intentionally small. Often, only 10–20 hospitals meet the required annual surgical volumes. Adoption outside these high-volume centres is not possible, regardless of product quality or clinician enthusiasm.

Why MedTech Must Align With the Dutch Volume-Based System

For MedTech innovators seeking reimbursement, the Dutch system offers both challenges and opportunities:

• Reimbursement eligibility depends on structural authorisation, not national demand.
• Evidence must be generated within high-volume surgical centres, not across the entire market.
• Insurers reimburse technologies only when used in authorised hospitals aligned with volume rules.
• Technologies demonstrating reductions in complications, readmissions, or operating-time variation within these centres gain a strong reimbursement position.

This means MedTech companies must design their strategy around high-volume workflows, multidisciplinary teams, SONCOS norms, IGJ oversight, and payer expectations.

The Opportunity Behind the Complexity

While restrictive, the Dutch model provides a predictable, evidence-driven path to surgical reimbursement. Companies that align their technology with minimum-volume logic—improved surgical quality, lower complications, efficiency in authorised centres—can capitalise on a system designed around measurable outcomes.

How the Dutch Surgical Volume System Works

The Dutch surgical ecosystem operates on a rigorously codified principle: complex surgery should only be performed in hospitals that can demonstrate sufficient annual case volume, multidisciplinary capability, and quality governance to ensure consistent outcomes. This is not an aspirational policy; it is an operational architecture embedded directly into the regulatory, supervisory, and payer landscape. Understanding this structure is fundamental for any MedTech manufacturer seeking reimbursement in the Netherlands.

At the centre of this system lie the minimum-volume standards, introduced progressively from 2011 onward and grounded in decades of outcome research showing that mortality, complication rates, and long-term survival improve when high-risk procedures are concentrated in high-volume hospitals. These standards are codified in the SONCOS norms—a set of multidisciplinary oncology and surgical requirements jointly developed by professional societies representing surgeons, medical oncologists, anaesthesiologists, and radiologists. Although SONCOS is not legislation, it functions as a quasi-regulatory instrument because it articulates what the clinical field itself recognises as the minimum conditions for safe, high-quality care.

Crucially, the Dutch system transforms these professional standards into enforceable structural rules through two mechanisms.

Regulatory Supervision by IGJ

The Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ) uses SONCOS norms as the basis for determining whether a hospital is authorised to perform a given surgical procedure. If a hospital falls below the required annual case volume—whether for pancreatic resections, oesophageal cancer surgery, complex vascular repairs, or gynaecological oncology—IGJ may issue a compliance order, initiate targeted supervision, or restrict the institution from continuing the service. In effect, authorisation is conditional on maintaining volume-defined expertise, making surgical capacity a regulated privilege, not an assumed right.

Selective Contracting by Dutch Health Insurers

Dutch insurers reinforce this system by integrating minimum-volume thresholds into their contracting and reimbursement policies. If a hospital does not meet SONCOS-aligned volumes, insurers generally decline to contract the service, meaning no reimbursement will be provided for procedures performed in non-compliant centres. This is where the Netherlands diverges sharply from other European systems: payer behaviour is actively aligned with structural quality standards, closing off reimbursement for services delivered outside the authorised high-volume network.

The combined effect of SONCOS norms, IGJ enforcement, and insurer contracting creates a hard boundary around complex surgical care. Only hospitals achieving the annual case volumes and by extension, demonstrating adequate team expertise, perioperative infrastructure, ICU capability, and multidisciplinary integration are permitted to deliver the relevant procedures. Other hospitals may have skilled surgeons or interest in new technologies, but they are structurally excluded from adopting innovations linked to these surgical pathways.

This is why the Dutch market behaves differently for MedTech: the true adoption landscape is structurally predetermined. In many domains—pancreatic surgery, oesophageal cancer, congenital cardiac repair, major vascular interventions—fewer than 20 hospitals nationally are authorised to perform the procedure. These centres form a tightly defined ecosystem of surgical expertise, evidence generation, and reimbursement eligibility. For manufacturers, this means that innovative technologies can only succeed if they integrate into the workflows, performance metrics, and quality requirements of these high-volume centres.

The structural logic is profoundly scientific: volume is a proxy for capability, and capability is a determinant of outcomes. The Netherlands operationalises this logic with remarkable coherence. For MedTech companies, success hinges on understanding not only the clinical need but the structural preconditions of surgical delivery because reimbursement flows only where the system permits the surgery to occur.

The Scientific Basis of Dutch Minimum-Volume Standards: Why Volume Really Matters

If you strip away the policy language, the enforcement mechanisms, and the contractual structures, the Dutch system is ultimately built on one idea: experience saves lives. And the Netherlands didn’t arrive at this conclusion through ideology; it arrived here by measuring, observing, and analysing its own outcomes over decades.

Volume–outcome relationships have always existed in surgery. What changed in the Netherlands is that the country decided to act on them.

You can see the pattern across almost every high-risk surgical field. When pancreatic cancer resections were distributed across more than 30 hospitals, postoperative mortality and severe complication rates remained stubbornly high. When oesophageal cancer resections were performed in centres with low annual caseloads, survival curves refused to budge. But each time procedures were consolidated first regionally, then nationally something remarkable happened: outcomes improved in ways that could no longer be dismissed as coincidence.

And this wasn’t a marginal effect.
It wasn’t a few percentage points.
Some procedures saw mortality reductions of 50% or more once they were moved to high-volume centres.

At some point, the data becomes too loud to ignore.

The Dutch Scientific Mindset: Observe → Quantify → Redesign the System

Unlike some countries that publish scientific findings and then quietly continue with business as usual, the Netherlands took these observations seriously enough to restructure its surgical landscape around them. It is a very Dutch approach: if the data shows something unequivocally, then the system should reflect it.

For example:

• The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group documented survival gains as resections moved from dozens of hospitals to a handful.
• National audits of oesophageal cancer surgery showed postoperative mortality falling dramatically once low-volume centres ceased performing the operation.
• Trauma outcomes improved once the country formalised its 11 trauma regions, each anchored by a dedicated level-1 centre.

These weren’t isolated studies. They fed into a continuous feedback mechanism between clinicians, data registries, and the Inspectorate. It’s a system that behaves almost like a learning organism: find the pattern → evaluate it → enforce it → measure it again.

This is why the Netherlands could never adopt a laissez-faire approach to surgical capacity.
The evidence simply made that impossible.

The Subtlety: Volume Isn’t Just About the Surgeon

One of the most interesting scientific insights and something misunderstood by outsiders — is that the effect is not purely technical skill. High-volume centres don’t just have surgeons who perform more cases; they have:

• more experienced anaesthesiology and ICU teams
• better perioperative pathways
• more reliable multidisciplinary review
• better escalation and rescue capability
• more robust complication management
• more mature data infrastructure
• more predictable post-discharge trajectories

In other words: volume isn’t merely a proxy for technical repetition; it’s a proxy for organisational readiness.

This is why the Netherlands embedded volume standards into organisational authorisation rather than just individual surgeon accreditation. It recognises that complex surgery is a team sport, not an artisanal craft.

What This Means for MedTech The Uncomfortable but Necessary Truth

Here is where the scientific insight becomes commercially relevant:

A low-volume hospital is not just a smaller hospital it is a hospital operating outside the organisational conditions required for high-complexity technology to deliver its intended outcomes.

This has three consequences for MedTech companies:

1. Your device will not perform the same way in a low-volume centre
   The ecosystem supporting the technology, surgical teams, ICU practices, and MDT coordination may be insufficiently developed.
2. Evidence generated in low-volume settings will not be persuasive to Dutch payers or regulators
   They simply don’t consider these environments representative of safe surgical practice.
3. Even if a low-volume hospital wants your technology, the system will not allow adoption or reimbursement
   This is perhaps the biggest shock to companies entering the Netherlands for the first time.

These outcomes are not arbitrary; they flow directly from the scientific logic the Netherlands has internalised:
if the hospital environment doesn’t meet the minimum structural conditions for safe surgery, no technology can compensate for that gap.

The Netherlands Uses Evidence Not Just to Justify Policy But to Shape Market Behaviour

Many health systems generate data. Very few redesign their surgical market around it.

What the Netherlands has achieved is unusual: it has created a reimbursement environment in which scientific evidence directly defines market boundaries. The minimum-volume standard is not a guideline; it is the physical perimeter of your potential customer base.

Once you understand that, the system stops looking restrictive and starts looking extremely rational — even elegant.

From a scientific perspective, it is structurally coherent.
From a MedTech perspective, it is strategically clarifying.

This is the kind of environment where a well-positioned technology can thrive if it truly enhances outcomes inside the high-volume ecosystem the Dutch system is built to protect.

What Dutch Data Really Shows About Surgical Centralisation

If you want to understand why the Netherlands treats minimum-volume standards not as policy preferences but as scientific inevitabilities, the clearest path is to look directly at the data. Few countries have examined their own surgical outcomes as systematically or as honestly. Fewer still have been willing to redesign their surgical ecosystem in direct response to those findings.

Below are some of the clearest, most instructive examples not as isolated studies but as a consistent narrative of how Dutch medicine internalised the relationship between volume, capability, and survival.

Pancreatic Surgery: The Point at Which the Evidence Became Impossible to Ignore

Pancreatic cancer surgery is a proving ground for system design. It is unforgiving, technically demanding, and organisationally complex. In the early 2000s, the Netherlands had more than 30 hospitals performing pancreatic resections. Complication rates were high, mortality was high, and long-term survival was deeply variable.

When the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group began publishing national outcome comparisons, the picture sharpened:

• Patients treated in hospitals performing >20–40 pancreatic resections per year experienced significantly lower postoperative mortality
• Complication rescue capacity the ability to recover a patient after a major postoperative event — correlated strongly with centre volume and ICU capability
• Hospitals performing just a handful of operations annually could not reliably reproduce the outcomes seen in high-volume centres

Once this became clear, the Netherlands didn’t debate the findings it restructured the entire national map of pancreatic surgery.
Hospitals under the threshold were expected to stop operating; patients were redirected to high-volume centres; insurers aligned their contracts; and IGJ enforced the structural shift.

The clinical result?
A sustained, measurable drop in mortality and improved survival trajectories that no technology, guideline, or process change alone could have achieved.

Oesophageal Cancer Surgery: The Volume–Outcome Effect Made Visible

The oesophageal cancer case study is equally instructive.

Before national centralisation efforts, oesophageal cancer surgery was performed in dozens of Dutch hospitals. Outcomes varied widely, and the operation, highly invasive, physiologically taxing, and dependent on multidisciplinary perioperative care proved highly sensitive to institutional experience.

When resections were consolidated into high-volume hospitals:

• Postoperative mortality fell from double-digit percentages to low single digits
• Anastomotic leak management improved because high-volume centres had the infrastructure and surgical redundancy to respond
• Length of stay decreased as pathways matured
• Long-term survival improved, not because the cancer behaved differently, but because the system around the surgery was now more capable

What is compelling is not just the improvement itself but the consistency of the effect across Dutch registries.
You see the same waveform:
variation collapses, survival curves rise, and outcomes stabilise.

Major Vascular Surgery: Complexity Demands Organisational Depth

High-risk vascular procedures open aortic surgery, complex EVAR, critical limb salvage operations are highly sensitive to institutional capability. In the Netherlands, as volume standards were applied and hospitals performing small numbers of high-risk vascular cases stepped aside, two key patterns emerged:

• Perioperative mortality declined in high-volume vascular centres
• Major complications (e.g., renal failure, bleeding, graft infection) were more consistently managed in centres with dedicated vascular teams and ICU infrastructure

Again, the effect was not primarily a matter of surgical brilliance it was the presence of reliable rescue systems, experienced nursing teams, and access to interventional radiology on a 24/7 basis. These are structural variables. They cannot be improvised.

Trauma Care: The 11-Centre Network as a National Laboratory of Organisational Science

Trauma systems reveal the purest version of the volume logic, because trauma is not planned, and outcomes depend entirely on system design.

When the Netherlands formalised its 11 trauma regions, each anchored by a designated level-1 trauma centre, several things shifted:

• Mortality in major trauma decreased as more patients were routed to centres with round-the-clock surgical availability
• Time to intervention shortened because these centres already had coordinated pathways and capacity buffers
• Critical subspecialties — neurosurgery, cardiothoracic, orthopaedics, and radiology were reliably available
• The trauma registry allowed continuous feedback and rapid system correction

In trauma, volume is not about annual case numbers so much as system readiness and the Dutch model is built precisely for that.

The Scientific Pattern: Volume Is a Proxy for a System That Cannot Fail

Across all these surgical domains pancreatic, oesophageal, vascular, trauma — the same underlying truth emerges:

High-volume centres succeed because they are designed not to fail.

• They have deeper benches of specialists.
• They have more resilient perioperative teams.
• They have better complication detection and escalation pathways.
• They have institutional memory, a concept rarely discussed but vital.
• They have predictable workflows, predictable outcomes, predictable rescue capability.

Low-volume centres, by contrast, rely on individual excellence in a context where organisational excellence determines survival.

The Netherlands recognised this earlier and more decisively than almost any nation in Europe.
And instead of leaving this scientific insight as an academic observation, it made it the organising principle of national surgical care.

How MedTech Can Position Itself Inside the Dutch System: Strategy, Evidence, Engagement, and Reimbursement

Understanding the scientific and structural logic of Dutch surgical centralisation is only the starting point.
The harder and more commercially relevant task is translating that understanding into a coherent reimbursement and adoption strategy.

This requires a shift in mindset.
Many MedTech companies still approach Europe as though each hospital were an independent adopter, each clinician a potential champion, each region a discrete commercial opportunity.
In the Netherlands, this logic collapses instantly.

Here, the system itself makes the first move.

The hospital is not your customer until the system decides it is even eligible to perform the surgery associated with your technology.
That single fact, more than any pricing model or evidence package, determines whether a MedTech innovation will ever reach reimbursement.

Below is how companies must think, behave, and design their strategies to align with the Dutch model.

Start With the Structural Map, Not the Sales Map

In most countries, market access teams begin by identifying hospitals with high surgical volume, strong KOL influence, or existing infrastructure.
In the Netherlands, the starting point is much narrower:

• Which centres are authorised to perform the procedure?
• Which centres meet minimum-volume standards under SONCOS?
• Which centres are contracted by insurers to deliver these services?
• Which centres function as regional referral hubs?

This is not an exploratory market; it is a pre-determined surgical ecosystem.

You are not selecting your market; the system has already selected it for you.

For many technologies, this means the total market is 10–20 hospitals, often fewer.
This is not a limitation; it is a clarity advantage.
It eliminates scattershot commercial activity and forces precision.

Build Evidence Where the System Believes Reality Lives

Dutch payers and regulators do not take evidence from low-volume centres seriously not because of bias, but because the scientific evidence shows that care delivered outside high-volume ecosystems behaves differently.

This means:

• Evidence must be generated inside centres that meet volume standards.
• Real-world studies must reflect organisational maturity, not just clinical endpoints.
• Workflow analysis must describe how the device interacts with multidisciplinary teams.
• Claims about complication reduction must be benchmarked against high-volume baseline performance, which is already strong.

If you generate evidence outside the authorised ecosystem, the system will treat it as irrelevant.

This is where many MedTech companies fail without realising it.

Design Your Value Proposition Around What the Dutch System Optimises For

The Netherlands is not trying to maximise procedure volume or hospital participation.
It is trying to maximise:

• Survival
• Complication avoidance
• Rescue capability
• Predictability
• System efficiency

Your value proposition must speak directly to these levers.

For example:

• A technology that shortens LOS by reducing postoperative complications will resonate strongly.
• A technology that improves intraoperative decision-making will be viewed as an additive capability to the high-volume environment.
• A device that reduces the frequency of surgical revisions or readmissions aligns with payer priorities.

You are not selling innovation
You are selling system alignment.

Understand Insurer Behaviour: They Are the Quiet Architects of Adoption

Dutch insurers behave unlike many European payers:

• They refuse contracts for procedures performed outside authorised centres.
• They require justification for new technologies based on measurable impact in high-volume settings.
• They engage directly with centres of expertise, not individual clinicians.
• They expect every technology to integrate into volume-based outcomes logic.

A technology that cannot demonstrate impact within these metrics has no pathway to reimbursement.

Conversely, if your technology strengthens the outcomes the system already prioritises, insurers often become powerful allies.

Engage Centres of Expertise Early They Are Your Gatekeepers

Because the eligible market is small, relationship depth matters more than breadth.

This means:

• Engaging surgical leaders in high-volume centres early
• Positioning your technology as an enabler of their outcome metrics
• Co-developing real-world data protocols that reflect Dutch surgical logic
• Ensuring your workflow narrative speaks the language of organisational capability, not just clinical benefit

If the top three or four centres adopt your technology, the rest of the market insurers, regulators, referral hospitals will shift accordingly.

This is a top-down adoption ecosystem, not a grassroots one.

Accept That You Cannot Create a Market You Can Only Fit Into One

This may be the single most important insight for MedTech entering the Netherlands.

You are not in a marketplace.
You are in a system whose architecture already determines:

• who may adopt
• who may perform the procedure
• who may claim reimbursement
• who may contract with insurers
• what evidence counts
• what evidence does not

Success comes not from trying to expand the system around your technology, but from fitting your technology into the logic the system already enforces.

If you respect the logic, the system rewards you.
If you ignore it, the system simply moves on without you.

The Strategic Lesson

The Netherlands is not a difficult market.
It is a demanding one.

It rewards companies that understand its scientific and structural foundations.
It penalises those who arrive with generic European playbooks.

If your technology can improve outcomes inside a high-volume, multidisciplinary, structurally authorised surgical ecosystem, the Dutch system will recognise its value.

But it must be built, tested, positioned, and evidenced in the places where the system believes real surgical quality resides.

Practical Steps for Securing Surgical Reimbursement in the Netherlands

By this stage, it should be clear that the Netherlands is not a market where reimbursement begins with price discussions, hospital interest, or individual clinician enthusiasm.
It begins with structural eligibility, moves through evidence alignment, and concludes only when insurers see measurable outcomes within authorised high-volume centres.

Below is a practical, strategically sequenced roadmap for MedTech companies aiming to secure Netherlands surgical reimbursement in a system explicitly designed to reward capability, not capacity.

Map the Surgical Ecosystem: Identify Authorised Centres Only

Before any commercial or clinical engagement, companies must:

1. Identify all hospitals authorised to perform the relevant surgery.
2. Confirm which centres meet the minimum-volume standards (SONCOS).
3. Determine which insurers contract those centres for that procedure.
4. Understand the regional referral networks feeding into each high-volume hub.

This exercise is not optional.
In the Netherlands, your reimbursable market equals the authorised ecosystem, nothing more.

This prevents wasted time, misguided outreach, and “false-positive enthusiasm” from hospitals not eligible to adopt your technology.

Align Evidence Generation With High-Volume Realities

To succeed in Dutch reimbursement, evidence must be:

• Generated within authorised, high-volume centres
• Co-developed with multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)
• Benchmarked against Dutch baseline performance (which is already high)
• Designed to measure the outcomes insurers value:
  • complications
  • readmissions
  • rescue failure
  • LOS variation
  • surgical quality indicators

If evidence comes from low-volume centres, international sites with different workflows, or mixed-centre studies, Dutch evaluators will discount it.

The system trusts outcome data generated within the structural model it itself enforces.

Build a Value Proposition That Speaks to Dutch Structural Logic

In the Netherlands, the value narrative must be tied to:

• volume-dependent workflows
• multidisciplinary organisation
• predictability of outcomes
• system efficiency
• reduction of complexity failures

This means shifting from:
“our device improves surgery”
to:
“our device enhances the high-volume surgical ecosystem the Netherlands has designed to optimise outcomes.”

This simple reframing is often the difference between acceptance and irrelevance.

Engage Key Centres of Expertise Early and Deeply

Because only a small number of hospitals matter, engagement must be:

• deeper
• earlier
• strategically collaborative
• and embedded in their outcome priorities

This means:

• Co-developing research questions
• Piloting within authorised centres
• Showcasing evidence that fits their surgical pathways
• Working with MDTs, not just surgeons

When the key centres adopt, insurers follow.
When insurers follow, reimbursement becomes natural.

Understand and Anticipate Insurer Logic

Dutch insurers are outcome-driven, volume-informed, and structurally aligned.
They will ask:

• Does this device meaningfully improve outcomes in centres already performing at a high baseline?
• Does it reduce avoidable complications?
• Does it shorten LOS in a measurable, reproducible way?
• Does it integrate into volume-based efficiency metrics?
• Does it demonstrate cost-effectiveness at scale within high-volume settings?

If the answer is yes, reimbursement becomes a rational extension of system design.

If the answer is no, no amount of marketing, KOL support, or clinical enthusiasm will shift the decision.

Prepare for Reimbursement Using System-Compatible Pathways

Depending on the technology, reimbursement may come through:

• Existing DBC/DOT tariffs (if the device fits into a current surgical activity)
• New add-on payment requests (if it brings measurable cost or outcome impact)
• Innovation routes such as:
  • SBO (Small-Scale Experiments / Beleidsregel Innovatie)
  • Conditional reimbursement pilots
  • Regional insurer–centre partnerships

These mechanisms do not bypass structural rules they operate inside them.

A low-volume hospital cannot participate in an innovation pilot for a high-complexity technology.
The system remains consistent.

Accept That Success Means Integration, Not Disruption

The Dutch surgical environment is one of the most mature, data-driven, and self-reflective in Europe.
MedTech companies succeed here when they respect the architecture rather than attempt to rewire it.

The question is not:
“How do we get Dutch hospitals to use our technology?”

The real question is:
“How does our technology strengthen the outcomes of the high-volume, structurally authorised centres the Netherlands relies on to deliver safe, effective surgical care?”

If you can answer that, reimbursement becomes a matter of alignment, not persuasion.

The Strategic Insight

The Netherlands rewards technologies that:

• reduce complexity
• enhance predictability
• support multidisciplinary function
• improve outcomes inside structurally authorised environments

This is a market where clarity beats volume, where precision beats breadth, and where system literacy becomes a commercial advantage.

Understanding the Dutch Payment Architecture: DBC/DOT, Add-Ons, and Small-Scale Experiments

At this point, we’ve examined how the Netherlands defines which hospitals may perform surgery and how structural rules shape MedTech adoption.
But none of that explains how money actually flows.
For a technology to achieve surgical reimbursement, it must align with the Dutch payment framework — and this framework operates with the same precision and coherence as its volume standards.

In other words:
structural eligibility determines who may adopt your technology;
payment systems determine how they can pay for it.

And the Netherlands, unsurprisingly, has turned payment into a disciplined, data-rich instrument of health-system design.

The Dutch DRG System (DBC/DOT): A Payment System Built Around Predictability

The Netherlands uses a DRG-like system called DBC/DOT — but unlike many DRG systems in Europe, it is explicitly built around:

• bundled surgical pathways
• cost predictability
• insurer–provider contract transparency
• strong alignment with structural authorisation rules

A DBC (“Diagnose Behandeling Combinatie”) is essentially a bundled care product covering:

• diagnostics
• surgery
• inpatient stay
• postoperative care
• follow-up visits

The defining feature is that the tariff is negotiated between insurers and hospitals, not fixed nationally.
This creates a unique interplay:

• High-volume authorised centres have negotiating power and predictable cost structures.
• Low-volume centres (if they were authorised) would not — which is one of many reasons they no longer perform complex surgery.
• Insurers can refuse reimbursement for procedures performed outside the authorised/high-volume framework.

For MedTech companies, this means:

• Your technology must fit within a DBC
• Or justify the creation of a supplementary add-on payment
• Or enter through a temporary innovation mechanism before being incorporated into mainstream tariffs

And crucially:
No payment mechanism can override structural authorisation.
The DRG system follows the structural rules; it does not replace them.

Add-On Payments: When a Technology Demonstrates Clear System-Level Value

The Netherlands allows “add-on” payments (supplementary tariffs) when a technology:

• changes the resource profile of a procedure
• improves measurable surgical outcomes
• reduces complications or revisions
• reduces LOS with sufficient effect size
• is used consistently in high-volume settings

These add-ons are often negotiated directly with insurers and may require:

• robust real-world data
• cost analyses
• pathway efficiency documentation
• evidence collected within authorised centres

Again, the system’s logic repeats itself:
Dutch reimbursement is a dance between structural rules and payer logic, both aligned around outcomes.

The Small-Scale Experiment Pathway (SBO / Beleidsregel Innovatie)

A controlled, temporary bridge between innovation and reimbursement.

If a technology is promising but not yet suitable for incorporation into a standard DBC, the Netherlands offers a unique innovation mechanism:
the Small-Scale Experiment (“Kleinschalige Experimenten”) pathway, regulated under the Beleidsregel Innovatie.

This pathway allows:

• temporary reimbursement
• limited-scale deployment
• structured real-world evidence generation
• insurer–provider agreements outside the DBC framework

Key characteristics:

Feature	Description
Duration	Typically 2–3 years
Scale	Limited to a small number of centres (again, usually authorised high-volume hospitals)
Purpose	To collect outcome and cost data to determine long-term reimbursement viability
Eligible technologies	Innovations that materially change a surgical pathway or diagnostic workflow
Governance	Jointly overseen by Innovatie Loket, insurers, and participating hospitals

The SBO route is elegant because it reflects Dutch pragmatism:
If the system isn’t sure whether your technology deserves reimbursement, it gives you a safe, controlled laboratory to prove it in real time.

For MedTech companies, this is an opportunity to:

• enter the market earlier
• generate high-quality RWE inside authorised centres
• build insurer partnerships
• position the technology for eventual DBC integration or add-on creation

And, importantly:
SBO does not bypass structural eligibility.
Only centres authorised for the relevant surgery may participate. In parallel, the Dutch system has further formalised its acceptance of reimbursement during evidence generation. Increasingly, innovative medical devices are assessed not on whether full evidence already exists, but on whether there is a credible and governed plan to generate it. This reflects a broader policy shift: reimbursement is no longer treated as a single event, but as an iterative process linked to predefined clinical outcomes, organisational impact, and downstream cost consequences.

For MedTech companies, this strengthens the case for early engagement with hospitals and insurers around pilot design, data capture, and decision criteria rather than treating evidence generation as a post-reimbursement activity.

The logic is consistent:
innovation must occur in environments where the surgical pathway is already functioning at the standard the system is designed to protect.

Why Payment Architecture Completes the System’s Logic

If Section 4 explained how to behave strategically within the Dutch structural environment,
and Section 3 explained why the system exists,
then Section 6 reveals the final layer:

Payment mechanisms in the Netherlands are not separate from surgical centralisation they are the operational extension of it.

• The DRG (DBC/DOT) system locks surgical pathways into predictable cost envelopes.
• Add-ons reward meaningful, measurable innovation.
• SBO experiments allow provisional uptake in a controlled fashion.
• Insurers enforce structural rules through contracts.
• Hospitals that fail minimum-volume standards cannot access reimbursement for complex procedures — and therefore cannot adopt advanced MedTech.

For a MedTech company, this means the route to reimbursement is not a negotiation;
it is a process of alignment:

Align with the surgical structure → align with the evidence logic → align with insurer priorities → align with the DBC/DOT payment model.

When these layers are in harmony, the Netherlands becomes an exceptionally rewarding market.

How MedTech Must Navigate the Dutch Surgical System

The Netherlands is one of the few health systems where structural design, scientific evidence, reimbursement architecture, and payer behaviour merge into a single coherent ecosystem.
To succeed here, a MedTech company must operate with an unusually high degree of system literacy.

Below, instead of offering a simple checklist, we present a structured analytical table — followed by commentary that translates each stage into the strategic intelligence required for real-world adoption.

MedTech Requirements Across the Dutch Surgical Pathway

Stage of the Dutch System	What the System Is Doing	What MedTech Must Understand	What MedTech Must Do
1. Structural Authorisation (SONCOS + IGJ)	Defining which hospitals are allowed to perform the surgery	Structural eligibility determines the boundaries of your market	Identify authorised centres only; ignore the rest
2. Volume Standards Enforcement	Ensuring high-risk surgery occurs only where outcomes are predictable	Volume = organisational capability, not just surgeon skill	Position your tech around high-volume workflow needs
3. Insurer Contracting Logic	Contracting selectively with centres that meet standards	Insurers act as the “quiet gatekeepers” of adoption	Build value cases tied to insurer outcome metrics
4. Evidence Thresholds in High-Volume Centres	Validating whether an innovation improves outcomes inside elite pathways	Only evidence generated in authorised centres counts	Run RWE or pilots in high-volume centres only
5. DBC/DOT Tariff Integration	Translating clinical pathways into predictable reimbursement	Your tech must fit into existing DBCs or justify an add-on	Map your technology to specific DBCs early
6. Supplementary Add-Ons	Funding innovations that improve measurable outcomes	Dutch payers reward outcome shifts, not novelty	Demonstrate complication reduction, LOS shifts, or revision avoidance
7. SBO / Small-Scale Experiments	Creating a controlled environment to test innovation	An entry route, not a workaround	Use SBO to generate Dutch-specific evidence for later integration
8. National Scaling Logic	Expanding only when the system sees stable benefit	Adoption follows system readiness, not sales pressure	Present data in system-aligned formats; target key surgical hubs

How to Read This Table as a MedTech Strategist

A superficial reading of the Dutch system paints it as restrictive, or even hostile, to innovation.
But a deeper reading shows the opposite: this is a system that invites innovation, provided the innovation is capable of functioning inside a high-performance surgical ecosystem.

Every row of the table is a signal about how the Netherlands thinks about risk, quality, and complexity.
Understanding these signals is essential for positioning technology not just as clinically useful, but as structurally inevitable.

Let’s unpack the underlying logic.

The System Is Not Your Barrier, It Is Your Blueprint

Structural Authorisation (SONCOS + IGJ): The System Chooses Your Market Before You Do

Most markets let the manufacturer decide which hospitals to target.
The Netherlands decides for you.
This seemingly restrictive feature actually removes huge amounts of commercial waste.
There is no ambiguity.

If a centre does not meet the standards:

• it cannot adopt your tech,
• it cannot be reimbursed for using it,
• and you should not spend a single hour trying to convert them.

This clarity is a gift to serious MedTech companies.

Volume Standards: The Invisible Architecture Beneath Every Surgical Outcome

Volume standards are not arbitrary thresholds; they are derived from survival curves, registry data, and the lived experience of Dutch clinicians.

When the Netherlands says, “Only these 12 hospitals may perform pancreatic surgery,”
what it is actually saying is:
“These centres collectively represent the organisational capability required to support complex interventions.”

If your device improves outcomes within these centres, the system will listen.
If it improves outcomes only in smaller hospitals, the system will not consider it relevant.

It is harsh but scientifically coherent.

Insurer Contracting Logic: The Quiet Force Behind Adoption

Dutch insurers don’t yell.
They don’t create headlines.
They simply contract with centres that meet structural standards and decline to contract with those that don’t.

This is why the Netherlands has the cleanest surgical maps in Europe:
insurers reinforce minimum-volume logic without drama.

For MedTech, the strategic insight is obvious:
insurers are not payers; they are co-designers of the surgical ecosystem.

Your value proposition must be written for them as much as for clinicians.

Evidence in High-Volume Centres: The Only Evidence That Counts

Evidence generated outside authorised centres is politely ignored.

Not because it lacks validity,
but because it is not representative of the surgical environment the Dutch system is designed to optimise.

This means Dutch RWE is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite.
And your early adopters must be high-volume hubs, not a scattering of enthusiastic clinicians.

DBC/DOT System: A Payment Model That Rewards Predictability

The Dutch DRG system is brutally honest about costs and outcomes.
It rewards technologies that:

• stabilise surgical pathways
• reduce cost variation
• reduce complications
• accelerate recovery

It does not reward technologies that introduce instability, complexity, or additional workflow burden without a clear offsetting benefit.

This is why technologies that look “innovative” on paper often fail in the Netherlands.
The system values integrated predictability over disruptive novelty.

Add-Ons and SBO: When the System Gives You a Laboratory

The Dutch system recognises that innovation sometimes needs room to breathe.
That is what SBO (Small-Scale Experiments) is for.

It says:
“We don’t know yet whether your technology belongs in the system — but we’re willing to give you a controlled environment to prove it.”

If handled well, this becomes an elegant stepping stone to:

• add-on payments
• permanent tariff inclusion
• national scaling

But SBO never bypasses structural authorisation.
It respects the architecture.

National Scaling: The System Expands Only When the Evidence Is Irrefutable

Dutch adoption is not viral it is architectural.
Once authorised centres demonstrate consistent outcome improvements, scaling becomes rational, not emotional.

And because the system is centralised and coherent,
once the key centres move,
the rest of the country follows not through enthusiasm, but through logic.

Final Insight: The Netherlands Rewards Technologies That Strengthen Its Architecture

The Dutch surgical environment is built on four pillars:

1. Structural authorisation
2. Minimum-volume capability
3. Predictable outcomes
4. Aligned reimbursement mechanisms

Technologies that amplify these pillars succeed.
Technologies that ignore them fail.
It is that simple and that complex.

This is not a country where innovation competes for attention;
it is a country where innovation competes for alignment.

If your technology strengthens the surgical ecosystem the Netherlands has spent 20 years building,
you will find not just reimbursement,
but partnership.

Surgical Reimbursement in the Netherlands: What MedTech Must Understand

Securing Netherlands surgical reimbursement is not a matter of persuading hospitals or impressing clinicians. It is a matter of aligning your MedTech innovation with the structural, scientific, and reimbursement architecture the Dutch system has spent two decades refining. Minimum-volume standards, hospital authorisation rules, insurer contracting behaviour, and the DBC/DOT payment model all converge to create a surgical ecosystem where only technologies that enhance high-volume performance earn reimbursement and adoption.

This means MedTech companies must think the way the Dutch system thinks:
in terms of predictability, capability, organisational readiness, and measurable outcome gain. Technologies that improve surgical quality inside authorised high-volume centres will find a receptive environment. Technologies that depend on low-volume adoption or decentralised experimentation will find no foothold.

The strategic insight is simple:
You do not succeed in the Netherlands by fighting the system; you succeed by fitting into it.

Once a MedTech innovation demonstrates value within the structurally authorised ecosystem, the Netherlands becomes one of the most stable, rational, and rewarding reimbursement environments in Europe.

How does Netherlands surgical reimbursement work for high-risk procedures?

Netherlands surgical reimbursement for high-risk procedures is built on a structural gatekeeping model that links payment directly to hospital capability, minimum-volume standards, and regulatory authorisation. In the Dutch system, reimbursement cannot be separated from the question of who is allowed to perform the surgery in the first place. This makes the Netherlands one of the only European countries where reimbursement eligibility is determined upstream of financial processes, at the level of surgical authorisation and system design.

Here is how it works:

1. Structural Authorisation Determines Eligibility for Reimbursement

For a hospital to receive reimbursement for a high-risk procedure, it must first be authorised to deliver that procedure under national minimum-volume criteria (e.g., SONCOS oncology norms, vascular and cardiothoracic thresholds, NICU capability rules).

If a centre does not meet the required case volume (for example, pancreatic cancer resections or oesophageal surgery), it loses the right to perform the surgery.
Once it loses authorisation, it automatically loses reimbursement eligibility — there is no financial workaround.

This is the foundation:
No authorisation → No surgical activity → No reimbursement pathway.

2. Insurers Enforce Authorisation Through Selective Contracting

Dutch health insurers are not passive payers; they are active system architects. They simply refuse to contract for high-risk surgeries in hospitals that do not meet volume requirements or lack the required organisational capability.

This means that even if a clinician wants to introduce a new MedTech device, reimbursement will not occur unless the technology is used inside an authorised, contracted, high-volume centre.

Insurers do this because the data consistently shows that high-volume centres have:

• lower mortality
• fewer complications
• more reliable rescue capacity
• shorter length of stay
• more predictable cost curves

These outcomes reduce insurer expenditure and stabilise DBC tariffs.

3. Reimbursement Flows Through the DBC/DOT System

All high-risk surgical procedures in the Netherlands are reimbursed through DBC/DOT bundles — comprehensive payment products covering:

• diagnostics
• operative episode
• ICU/theatre time
• postoperative care
• follow-up

To receive reimbursement, hospitals must:

• register the procedure correctly
• meet structural norms
• deliver care that aligns with national quality frameworks

If a MedTech device changes the resource profile of the pathway — e.g., reduces LOS, prevents complications — it may justify:

• a DBC add-on, or
• a new performance code

But only after the technology proves measurable outcome and economic value inside authorised surgical pathways.

4. An Innovation Exception Exists . But Only Inside Authorised Centres

New technologies without established reimbursement may enter the system via the Small-Scale Experiment (SBO) mechanism. This allows:

• temporary reimbursement
• controlled deployment
• real-world evidence collection
• joint evaluation by insurers and centres

However and this is critical SBO does not override structural authorisation.
A low-volume centre cannot join an SBO for a surgery it is not allowed to perform.

5. Outcome Evidence Determines Long-Term Reimbursement

To secure permanent reimbursement for a MedTech innovation in high-risk surgery, Dutch insurers expect Dutch-generated evidence showing:

• reduced morbidity and complications
• improved survival or perioperative performance
• reliable reproducibility in high-volume workflows
• cost-offset within the DBC
• reduced ICU burden or LOS variability

In the Netherlands, evidence is only valid when generated inside authorised centres, because these are the environments that reflect the true surgical standard of care.

Netherlands surgical reimbursement for high-risk procedures is a structurally gated, evidence-driven pathway.
Only authorised high-volume centres can deliver the surgery; only these centres can adopt MedTech; only evidence generated in these centres influences reimbursement; and insurers enforce compliance through selective contracting and DBC/DOT payment design.

It is one of the most rational, predictable, and outcomes-centred reimbursement models in Europe — but only if your technology fits the system’s architecture.

FAQ:

1. Why is surgical reimbursement in the Netherlands different from other European countries?

Because the Netherlands embeds surgical reimbursement inside a structural quality-control framework, rather than treating it as a downstream financial process. Three forces uniquely interact here:

1. Minimum-volume surgical standards (SONCOS) define which hospitals are allowed to perform high-risk procedures.
2. Regulatory enforcement (IGJ) ensures non-compliant hospitals lose authorisation to deliver those procedures.
3. Insurer contracting restricts reimbursement to centres meeting these standards.

The economic logic is simple:
high-volume centres deliver better outcomes at lower system cost, with fewer complications, fewer revisions, and higher survival probability.

The Netherlands hardwires this into reimbursement policy.
This is why the system behaves more like an engineered ecosystem than a loose market.

2. How do minimum-volume standards affect MedTech market access?

Minimum-volume standards don’t just influence market access — they determine it.

Under Dutch rules:

• If a centre does not meet required surgical volumes, it may not perform the surgery.
• If the centre cannot perform the surgery, it cannot adopt or be reimbursed for a MedTech device used in that procedure.
• If a device relies on a procedure performed only in high-volume settings, its true market is limited to 10–20 hospitals at most.

This may appear restrictive, but it actually increases adoption predictability:

• You know exactly which hospitals matter.
• You can target MDTs in those centres early.
• Evidence built in these hospitals is automatically system-relevant.
• Insurers recognise the value of technologies proven in high-volume environments.

This radically reduces commercial inefficiency.
You no longer waste effort on hospitals that will never be reimbursed.

3. What is the DBC/DOT reimbursement system, and how does it affect MedTech?

DBC/DOT is the Dutch DRG-equivalent:
a bundled payment system that groups diagnostics, surgery, perioperative care, and follow-up into a single reimbursable unit.

Important features for MedTech:

• Tariffs are negotiated between individual hospitals and insurers — not fixed nationally.
• High-volume centres negotiate stronger contracts, because they produce more predictable outcomes and lower cost variability.
• If a technology changes the resource mix inside a DBC (e.g., reduces LOS, prevents complications), it may justify a supplementary add-on payment.

For MedTech, this means:

• Your device must fit within or around an existing DBC/DOT pathway.
• Insurers must believe that the technology produces system-level economic gain (cost-offset, LOS reduction, fewer complications).
• Evidence must reflect Dutch workflow, not just clinical endpoints.

The DBC/DOT system rewards technologies that make surgery more predictable, safer, and less variable — exactly the outcomes high-volume systems depend on.

4. Can new surgical technologies enter the market without full reimbursement approval?

Yes.
The Netherlands offers an elegant transitional mechanism:
the Small-Scale Experiment (SBO / Beleidsregel Innovatie).

This pathway enables:

• temporary reimbursement outside normal DBC rules
• controlled deployment in a small number of authorised high-volume centres
• generation of Dutch real-world evidence (RWE)
• early collaboration between hospitals and insurers
• assessment of clinical, organisational, and economic impact

Typical use cases:

• technologies that modify surgical workflow
• tools that reduce complication rates
• devices that change postoperative or ICU trajectories
• innovations with promising evidence but requiring Dutch validation

SBO is not a loophole.
It is a sandbox with governance, designed to ensure that innovation enters the system safely and with evidence proportional to risk and cost.

If successful, SBO results feed directly into:

• DBC/DOT integration
• permanent add-on creation
• national contracting shifts

For MedTech, this is often the most efficient route into Dutch surgery.

5. What evidence do Dutch insurers expect to see from MedTech companies?

Dutch insurers evaluate technologies through a multidisciplinary evidence lens:

Clinical Evidence

• reduced complication rates (e.g., leaks, infections, bleeding, reoperations)
• improved short-term outcomes (survival, morbidity, ICU length of stay)
• fewer high-cost failures (e.g., failure-to-rescue events)

Organisational Evidence

• improved workflow efficiency
• reduced variability in theatre performance
• smoother MDT decision-making
• faster diagnostic-to-treatment intervals
• predictable postoperative recovery

Economic Evidence

• reduced LOS
• fewer unplanned ICU admissions
• reduced need for costly rescue interventions
• cost-offset within the DBC
• lower insurer expenditure per surgical episode

Contextual Evidence

• must be generated in high-volume centres
• must reflect Dutch pathways, not generic international cohorts
• must demonstrate effect size beyond existing Dutch baseline performance (which is already high)

Insurers are conservative but deeply logical:
They reimburse innovations that strengthen the structural design of surgical care.

6. How should MedTech companies approach Dutch hospitals?

Companies should avoid the traditional “broad outreach” model.
Instead, they should use a precision engagement strategy:

A. Focus on the 10–20 authorised centres

These are the only centres:

• allowed to perform the surgery
• capable of adopting your technology
• whose outcomes matter for reimbursement
• recognised by insurers as valid partners

B. Engage MDTs, not individuals

Dutch adoption is driven by:

• surgeons
• anaesthesiologists
• ICU teams
• radiology
• oncology
• nursing
• hospital quality departments

If any of these stakeholders see misalignment, adoption will stall.

C. Enter through pathway-level conversations

Instead of “this device is innovative,” the message must be:

• “This device strengthens your high-volume surgical pathway.”
• “This reduces your complication variance.”
• “This improves predictability within your DBC.”

D. Build evidence with them, not for them

Dutch centres of expertise are used to generating national-level data.
They prefer collaboration over passive adoption.

If they see your technology as a tool to meet surgical-quality objectives, insurers follow.

7. Does Dutch centralisation mean MedTech markets are smaller?

Smaller in number of sites, yes.
But deeper in:

• adoption rate
• usage consistency
• payer support
• pathway integration
• quality of evidence
• international credibility

High-volume centres generate stronger data, more stable procurement decisions, and more persuasive economic claims.

A technology proven inside Dutch high-volume structures becomes globally credible.

8. How does the Netherlands compare to Germany, France, Sweden, and Denmark?

The Netherlands is the clearest and most structurally consistent example of surgical centralisation.
However:

• Denmark pioneered acute-care centralisation and shows similar outcomes.
• Sweden centralised major oncology and trauma services long ago.
• France authorises high-risk cancer surgery based on volume and capability.
• Germany is now moving toward volume-based authorisation in its 2025 hospital reform.

The Dutch system is the most data-driven, enforced, and payer-aligned version.
It is the European blueprint. The Netherlands surgical reimbursement system is intentionally designed to reward predictable, high-volume outcomes and to channel innovation through structurally authorised centres only. For MedTech companies, understanding how Netherlands surgical reimbursement links authorisation, minimum-volume standards, and insurer contracting is essential for successful market access.

9.Does Netherlands surgical reimbursement apply differently to low-risk and high-risk surgery?

Yes. Low-risk surgery is reimbursed through standard DBC/DOT bundles, while Netherlands surgical reimbursement for high-risk surgery depends on strict structural authorisation and minimum-volume compliance. Only authorised high-volume centres may perform, register, or claim reimbursement for complex procedures.

10. Can a hospital regain reimbursement eligibility if it loses authorisation?

Only if it meets the volume standards again, demonstrates structural capability, and is reinstated by IGJ. Without authorisation, reimbursement is impossible because Dutch surgical reimbursement is inseparable from regulatory approval and insurer contracting.

References

Nederlandse Vereniging voor Neurochirurgie – Kwaliteitsnormen
Specialty-level standards embedding explicit minimum volume thresholds.
https://cdn.bluenotion.nl/6b299c6b2ce6ad72fa6b944072d3b655de8425ae51ba5bbe44aa7dab30262787.pdf

SONCOS Normeringsrapport – Multidisciplinaire Normering Oncologische Zorg (2024, Version 12)
SONCOS (Platform Oncologie, Federatie Medisch Specialisten). Official professional field norm defining minimum case volumes and structural requirements for complex oncological care in the Netherlands.
https://demedischspecialist.nl/sites/default/files/2024-02/SONCOS%20normeringsrapport%20versie%2012%20-%202024.pdf

SONCOS Normeringsrapport Version 5 (2017)
Historical baseline document illustrating early development of volume norms in Dutch oncology care.
https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/gerelateerde_documenten/file/12179/1/43SONCOS-normeringsrapport-versie-5.pdf

Zorginstituut Nederland – Naar passende oncologische en vaatchirurgische zorg (2025)
National policy report embedding volume-based concentration in benefit-package decision-making.
https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/03/26/naar-passende-oncologische-en-vaatchirurgische-zorg/Naar%2Bpassende%2Boncologische%2Ben%2Bvaatchirurgische%2Bzorg.pdf

IGJ – Basisset Medisch-Specialistische Zorg 2024
National supervision framework for quality and risk in hospital-based specialist care.
https://www.igj.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2023/10/16/basisset-medisch-specialistische-zorg-2024/Basisset%2BMSZ%2BVerbeterdoelen%2Ben%2Btoezichtvragen.pdf

Medisch Contact – “Volumenorm spaart levens” (2011)
Early professional articulation of the volume–outcome relationship in surgery.
https://www.medischcontact.nl/actueel/laatste-nieuws/artikel/volumenorm-spaart-levens

SiRM – Concentratie complexe behandelingen
Health-economic analysis quantifying mortality reductions associated with higher surgical volumes.
https://www.sirm.nl/docs/Concentratie-complexe-behandelingen.pdf

NZa – Registreren en declareren medisch-specialistische zorg
Official explanation of the DBC/DOT reimbursement system.
https://www.nza.nl/zorgsectoren/medisch-specialistische-zorg/registreren-en-declareren

NZa – Innovatie (kleinschalige experimenten)
Policy framework for small-scale reimbursement experiments.
https://www.nza.nl/onderwerpen/i/innovatie

Beleidsregel Innovatie voor kleinschalige experimenten
Formal legal basis for innovation experiments in Dutch healthcare.
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0050215

NZa – Toetsingskader wijzigingsverzoeken dbc-systeem
Framework for formal modification of the DBC system.
https://puc.overheid.nl/nza/doc/PUC_283801_22/

Antoni van Leeuwenhoek / NKI – Nieuwe afspraken over volumenormen (2025)
Public announcement illustrating implementation of new national volume standards.
https://www.avl.nl/nieuwsberichten/2025/nieuwe-afspraken-over-volumenormen-kankerzorg-en-vaatchirurgie/