IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v26y2017is1p70-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Author

Listed:
  • Rosanna Tarricone
  • Giuditta Callea
  • Marko Ogorevc
  • Valentina Prevolnik Rupel

Abstract

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organisational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision‐making process for their adoption. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist supplemented by some additional categories to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment reports were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs, but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organisational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well‐designed post‐market studies could help in reducing uncertainties and make policymakers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosanna Tarricone & Giuditta Callea & Marko Ogorevc & Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, 2017. "Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 70-92, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:s1:p:70-92
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3471
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    2. Oriana Ciani & Britni Wilcher & Anoukh van Giessen & Rod S. Taylor, 2017. "Linking the Regulatory and Reimbursement Processes for Medical Devices: The Need for Integrated Assessments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 13-29, February.
    3. Yauheniya Varabyova & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Jonas Schreyögg, 2017. "The Role of Learning in Health Technology Assessments: An Empirical Assessment of Endovascular Aneurysm Repairs in German Hospitals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 93-108, February.
    4. Oriana Ciani & Britni Wilcher & Anoukh Giessen & Rod S. Taylor, 2017. "Linking the Regulatory and Reimbursement Processes for Medical Devices: The Need for Integrated Assessments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 13-29, February.
    5. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 145-152, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rozmarinová Jana & Říhová Barbora, 2021. "Health Technology Assessment of the Medical Devices: A Case Study from the Czech Republic," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 14(2), pages 253-272, December.
    2. Michael Drummond & Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Aleksandra Torbica & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Oriana Ciani & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Werner Brouwer, 2022. "Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 179-194, September.
    3. Sandor Kovács & Zoltán Kaló & Rita Daubner‐Bendes & Katarzyna Kolasa & Rok Hren & Tomas Tesar & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Werner Brouwer & Carlo Federici & Mike Drummond & Antal Tamás Zemplényi, 2022. "Implementation of coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: A decision tool for late technology adopter countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 195-206, September.
    4. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 5-12, February.
    5. Philip Klein & Hedwig Blommestein & Maiwenn Al & Benedetta Pongiglione & Aleksandra Torbica & Saskia de Groot, 2022. "Real‐world evidence in health technology assessment of high‐risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 10-24, September.
    6. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond & for the MedtecHTA Project Group, 2017. "Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 145-152, February.
    7. Semjonova Nadezhda, 2020. "Economic Tendencies of the European and Latvian Medical Device Market," Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 297-310, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 5-12, February.
    2. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond & for the MedtecHTA Project Group, 2017. "Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 145-152, February.
    3. Philip Klein & Hedwig Blommestein & Maiwenn Al & Benedetta Pongiglione & Aleksandra Torbica & Saskia de Groot, 2022. "Real‐world evidence in health technology assessment of high‐risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 10-24, September.
    4. Pedro Parreira & Liliana B. Sousa & Inês A. Marques & Paulo Santos-Costa & Sara Cortez & Filipa Carneiro & Arménio Cruz & Anabela Salgueiro-Oliveira, 2020. "Usability Assessment of an Innovative Device in Infusion Therapy: A Mix-Method Approach Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    6. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    7. Fuchs, Sabine & Olberg, Britta & Perleth, Matthias & Busse, Reinhard & Panteli, Dimitra, 2019. "Testing a new taxonomic model for the assessment of medical devices: Is it plausible and applicable? Insights from HTA reports and interviews with HTA institutions in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 173-181.
    8. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    9. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    10. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    11. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    12. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    13. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    14. Michael Drummond & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica, 2016. "Incentivizing research into the effectiveness of medical devices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1055-1058, December.
    15. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    18. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    19. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    20. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:s1:p:70-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.