Recently, the National Healthcare Security Administration officially released the "Guidelines for the Approval of Medical Service Price Projects for Surgery and Treatment Auxiliary Operations (Trial)" (referred to as the "Guidelines"), which provides a unified national charging framework for cutting-edge medical technologies such as surgical robots. In the past, the names and charging standards of surgical robot services were not unified in more than 30 provinces across the country, and there were various charging models such as bundled charges, start-up fees+consumables based on actual charges, and additional charges for main surgical projects. Due to the complexity and inconsistency of project names, patients find it difficult to clearly understand the cost structure, medical institutions lack a unified basis for cost accounting, and medical insurance departments find it difficult to implement precise and effective supervision. Nowadays, the "Guidelines" standardize the charging items for surgical robots into three levels: "navigation", "participation in execution", and "precise execution", establishing a "coefficient based" charging model linked to the main surgery, giving new technologies a clear "ID card", and allowing patients to consume clearly, taking an important step towards regulating market order. The rules have been established, and on this basis, how to measure the specific "ruler" has become a focus of attention both inside and outside the industry. Surgical robot technology is new, the cost structure is complex, and the depth of use for different surgeries varies greatly. Some robots only provide navigation and positioning, while others participate in precise execution throughout the entire process. Some are used for routine surgeries, while others are used for complex and difficult operations, with significant cost differences. It is indeed difficult to match vastly different clinical practices with a relatively fixed standard. According to industry insiders, the profits of surgical robot manufacturers are not high. If there is too much pressure to reduce costs, it may hinder the iteration and upgrading of new generation products and consumables; If the pricing of services lacks necessary flexibility, some hospitals may reduce the use of surgical robots in clinical practice due to operational cost considerations, resulting in patients facing the dilemma of "having money but nowhere to spend" even if they are willing to pay for themselves. As an emerging high-tech industry, surgical robots are facing high investment and long-term development conditions. At present, there are more than 60 surgical robot companies in China with over 93 registration certificates. Many products have just entered the market, and the initial R&D investment is high, putting considerable pressure on the survival and development of enterprises. If terminal service prices are locked in at a low level too early, many companies may find it difficult to recoup their research and development costs, and may also be unable to invest in next-generation technology iteration and upgrading. Leaving some room for pricing services is also to enable this industry to gain long-term development momentum. A good pricing policy should strike a balance between being manageable and living well. The public is pleased to see a unified framework to curb arbitrary fees, and also hopes that there can be more inclusive development ideas at the implementation level. On the basis of national standards, supplemented by a dynamic adjustment mechanism, research cost estimation data of first-line hospitals, refer to the actual R&D investment of enterprises, and allow localities or hospitals to implement floating pricing within a certain range. For surgeries with extremely high clinical value and technical difficulty, a slightly higher fee coefficient should be allowed to reflect the value of technical labor; For popular applications, costs can be gradually reduced through market competition. It should be said that the Guidelines demonstrate a certain degree of foresight and inclusiveness in this regard. For example, setting up dedicated "extension items" to reserve space for technologies that are not yet mature but have potential, avoiding a "one size fits all" approach to blocking. This dynamic mechanism of 'mature one, standardized one' is conducive to safeguarding patient rights and leaving room for flexibility in future technological iterations. In short, using the "tangible hand" to regulate management and realize the value of public services, and using the "intangible hand" to regulate the market and realize the value of technological innovation, is conducive to forming a virtuous cycle of "both hands grasping and both hands hard". Looking further ahead, the development of surgical robots is not only about a few surgeries or bills at present, but also about the overall improvement of China's surgical diagnosis and treatment level, whether it can narrow the gap with developed countries in this strategic field in the future, and whether future generations can use more mature and universal advanced medical technologies. At present, there is still a significant gap in the installation of surgical robots per million people in China compared to developed countries. This is not only a serious challenge, but objectively speaking, it also means opportunities for development. Providing necessary flexibility in pricing for surgical robot services is an inherent need to safeguard the long-term health interests of the public. (New Society)