Which barriers prevent the efficient use of resources in medical device sectors?

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 209-217

  Simoens, Steven ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; DEVICE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NOTE; REIMBURSEMENT; SAFETY;

DEVICE APPROVAL; ECONOMIC COMPETITION; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; HUMANS; MARKETING;

EID: 73549114860     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/bf03256154     Document Type: Note

References (22)

1. Council Directive of 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Official J L 1993 Jul 12; 169: 1-43
2. Pammolli F, Riccaboni M, Oglialoro C, et al. Medical devices competitiveness and impact on public health expenditure. Brussels: Directorate Enterprise of the European Commission, 2005 [online]. Available fromURL: http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/medical-devices/c-f-f/md-final-report.pdf [Accessed 2008 Nov 6]
3. Eucomed. Medical technology brief 2007. Brussels: Eucomed, 2009
4. RIZIV/INAMI. Evolution of health care expenditure 2005 [in Dutch]. Brussels: RIZIV/INAMI, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.riziv.fgov. be/information/nl/ evolution/2005/pdf/part01.pdf [Accessed 2007 Sep 26]
5. Sparks R. Forecast for the medical device outsourcing market: growth and consolidation. New York: Frost & Sullivan Market Insight, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insighttop. pag?docid=59785202 [Accessed 2008 Jul 31]
6. Van den Steen D, Simoens S, Vanleene V, et al. Health technology assessment of ostomy appliances in Belgium. Report 21A. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. kce.fgov.be/index-nl.aspx?SGREF=5270&CREF=5368 [Accessed 2008 Aug 4]
7. Cornago D, Garattini L. The ostomy appliances market in five European countries: a comparative analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2002; 1: 43-50
8. Crowninshield R. The orthopaedic profession and industry: conflict or convergence of interests. Clin Orthop 2003; 412: 8-13 (Pubitemid 36793101)
9. Simoens S, De Coster S, Moldenaers I, et al. Health technology assessment of orthopaedic appliances in Belgium. Report 56A. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.kce.fgov.be/index-nl.aspx?SGREF=8948&CREF= 9447 [Accessed 2008 Aug 8]
10. Yasunaga H, Ide H, Imamura T. Current disparities in the prices of medical materials between Japan and the United States: further investigation of cardiovascular medical devices. J Cardiol 2007; 49: 77-81
11. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LMG, Buxton MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24: 459-464
12. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290: 1624-1632
13. Maisel WH. Medical device regulation: an introduction for the practicing physician. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 296-302
14. European Commission. Enterprise and industry. Medical devices sector. Brussels: European Commission, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ medical-devices/index-en.htm [Accessed 2008 Nov 10]
15. Feldman MD, Petersen AJ, Karliner LS, et al. Who is responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices? The role of independent technology assessment. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23 Suppl. 1: 57-63
16. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force. Chest 2006; 129: 174-181 (Pubitemid 43265259)
17. Reed SD, Shea AM, Schulman KA. Economic implications of potential changes to regulatory and reimbursement policies for medical devices. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23 Suppl. 1: 50-56
18. Vinck I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. A procedure for the assessment of emerging medical devices. KCE report 44A. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kce.fgov.be/ index-nl.aspx?SGREF=5269&CREF=7935 [Accessed 2008 Nov 6]
19. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Lawrenceville (NJ): International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PEguide lines/index.asp [Accessed 2008 Nov 12]
20. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices - budget impact analysis. Value Health 2007; 10: 336-347
21. Beguin C, Deggouj N, Debaty M, et al. Hearing aids in Belgium: health technology assessment. KCE report 91A. Brussels: Belgian Health Care KnowledgeCentre, 2008 [online]. Available fromURL: http://www.kce.fgov.be/index- nl.aspx? SGREF=10500&CREF=11821 [Accessed 2008 Nov 3]
22. Cohen J, Stolk E, Niezen M. The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (9): 727-734