The economic evaluation of medical devices: Challenges ahead

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 15-26

  Kirisits, Andreas ^a   Redekop, W Ken ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; MEDICAL DEVICE; REVIEW;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES, HOSPITAL; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84873472665     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-012-0006-9     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. The European Commission. Medical devices competitiveness - facts and figures (online). http://ec.europa.eu/health/medical-devices/competitiveness/ facts-figures/index-en.htm. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical device registration (online). http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/premarket/ftparea/Registration.zip. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
3. Fraser AG, Daubert JC, Van de Werf F, et al. Clinical evaluation of cardiovascular devices: principles, problems, and proposals for European regulatory reform: report of a policy conference of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(13):1673-86.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Is the product a medical device? (online). http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/ucm051512.htm. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
5. The European Commission. Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market.
6. GHTF Study Group 1 on behalf of the Global Harmonization Task Force. Information document concerning the definition of the term "Medical Device" (online). 2005 Jul. http://www.imdrf.org/docs/ghtf/final/sg1/ technical-docs/ghtf-sg1-n29r16-2005-definition-medical-device-050520.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2012.
7. GHTF Study Group 1 on behalf of the Global Harmonization Task Force. Principles of Medical Devices Classification (online). 2006 Aug. http://www.imdrf.org/docs/ghtf/final/sg1/technical-docs/ghtf-sg1-n15-2006- guidance-classification-060627.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2012.
8. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
9. Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). Levels of evidence (online). 2009 Mar. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
10. Ramsey SD, Luce BR, Deyo R, et al. The limited state of technology assessment for medical devices: facing the issues. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4(Spec. No.):SP188-99.
11. Hartling L, McAlister FA, Rowe BH, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of therapeutic devices and procedures. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1100-11.
12. Cohen D, Billingsley M. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ. 2011;342:d2748. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2748.
13. Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Vinck I, et al. The pre-market clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices. Health Services Research (HSR) Brussels; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) 2011. KCE Report 158C. D/2011/10.273/31.
14. GHTF Study Group 5 on behalf of the Global Harmonization Task Force. Clinical Investigations (online). 2010 Feb. http://www.imdrf.org/docs/ghtf/ final/sg5/technical-docs/ghtf-sg5-n3-clinical-investigations-100212.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2012.
15. Feigal DW, Gardner SN, McClellan M. Ensuring safe and effective medical devices. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):191-2.
16. Kaplan AV, Baim DS, Smith JJ, et al. Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation. 2004;109(25):3068-72.
17. Siebert M, Clauss LC, Carlisle M, et al. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe: what must be considered. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(3):733-40.
18. Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, et al. When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1(14):1-149.
19. Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J. 'Early warning systems' for identifying new healthcare technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(13):1-108.
20. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical device recalls (online). http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
21. Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(11):1006-11.
22. Wilmshurst P. The regulation of medical devices. BMJ. 2011;342:d2822. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2822.
23. Cohen D. Out of joint: the story of the ASR. BMJ. 2011;342:d2905. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2905.
24. Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995;88(10):552-9.
25. O'Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein's monster or vampire of trials? Med Care. 1996;34(12 Suppl.):DS99-108.
26. Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(13):992-6.
27. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, et al. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl. 2):ii54-8.
28. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215-8.
29. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402-4.
30. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49):1-192.
31. Heemskerk J, van Dam R, van Gemert WG, et al. First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci Surgical System in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg. 2005;22(6):426-31.
32. Raftery J. Costing in economic evaluation. BMJ. 2000;320(7249):1597.
33. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):699-707.
34. Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):167-78.
35. Birch S, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M. Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):879-84.
36. Redekop WK. Cost-effectiveness analyses of diagnostic strategies: a literature survey using the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2006;6(1):41-8.
37. Sassi F, McKee M, Roberts JA. Economic evaluation of diagnostic technology: methodological challenges and viable solutions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(4):613-30.
38. Kertesz A, Black SE, Nicholson L, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI in stroke. Neurology. 1987;37(10):1580-5.
39. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254-62.
40. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, et al. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(12):1-79.
41. Sorrento GU, Archambault PS, Routhier F, et al. Assessment of Joystick control during the performance of powered wheelchair driving tasks. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:31.
42. Brouwer W, Rutten F, Koopmanschap M. Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 68-93.
43. Fineberg HV. Technology assessment: motivation, capability and future directions. Med Care. 1985;23(5):663-71.
44. Raab GG, Parr DH. From medical invention to clinical practice: the reimbursement challenge facing new device procedures and technology. Part 1: Issues in medical device assessment. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3(9):694-702.
45. United States International Trade Commission. Medical Devices and equipment: competitive conditions affecting U.S. trade in Japan and other principal foreign markets (online). 2007 Mar. http://www.usitc.gov/publications/ 332/pub3909.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
46. Brown A, Meenan BJ, Dixon D, et al. Application of the experience curve to price trends in medical devices: implications for product development and marketing strategies. J Med Mark. 2008;8(3):241-55.
47. Remák E, Hutton J, Jones M, et al. Changes in cost-effectiveness over time: the case of Epoetin Alfa for renal replacement therapy patients in the UK. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(2):115-21.
48. Sculpher M, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: when is there sufficient evidence? Value Health. 2005;8(4):433-46.
49. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360(9334):711-5.
50. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):79-85.
51. McCulloch P. Wanted: an appropriate evaluation template. BMJ. 2011;342:d3540. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3540.
52. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105-12.
53. Wild C, Langer T. Emerging health technologies: informing and supporting health policy early. Health Policy. 2008;87(2):160-71.
54. Ijzerman MJ, Steuten LM. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(5):331-47.
55. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):133-9.
56. Mehrotra AK, Knight BP, Smelley MP, et al. Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead recall: determining the initial 5-year management cost to Medicare. Heart Rhythm. 2001;8(8):1192-7.
57. Berry MG, Stanek JJ. The PIP mammary prosthesis: a product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(6):697-704.
58. Rägo L, Santoso B. Drug regulation: history, present and future. In: van Boxtel CJ, Santoso B, Edwards IR, editors. Drug benefits and risks: international textbook of clinical pharmacology. revised 2nd ed. IOS Press and Uppsala Monitoring Centre; 2008. p. 65-77.
59. Freemantle N. Commentary: evaluating and regulating device therapy. BMJ. 2011;342:d2839. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2839.
60. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):404-6.
61. Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43(7 Suppl.):5-14.