HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 154-165

  Ciani, Oriana ^a,b   Wilcher, Britni ^a   Blankart, Carl Rudolf ^c   Hatz, Maximilian ^c   Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik ^d   Erker, Renata Slabe ^d   Varabyova, Yauheniya ^c   Taylor, Rod S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^d Institute for Economic Research (IER)   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; Medical devices; Reimbursement

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; COORDINATION REACTIONS; HEALTH; HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SURVEYS;

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; MEDICAL DEVICES; METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH; METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES; ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES; REIMBURSEMENT; SCIENTIFIC METHOD; SKILLED EMPLOYEES;

BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BUDGET; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SURVEY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MEDICAL DEVICE; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCESS TECHNOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REIMBURSEMENT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; VALIDATION STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DEVICES; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES;

DECISION MAKING; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84937632665     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000185     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:7-9.
2. Perry S, Gardner E, Thamer MW. The status of health technology assessment worldwide. Results of an international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:81-98.
3. Oortwijn W, Broos P, Vondeling H, et al. Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:424-434.
4. Oortwijn W, Mathijssen J, Banta D. The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy. 2010;95:74-84.
5. Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA, et al. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? J Comp Eff Res.2012;2:29-44.
6. EUnetHTA. Survey report on HTA organisations. 2008. http://www.eunethta.eu/outputs/survey-report-hta-organisations (accessed March 4, 2015).
7. Franken M, le Polain M, Cleemput I, et al. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:349-357.
8. Wilsdon T, Serota A. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of Health Technology Assessment. London: Charles River Associates; 2011. http://medicinesaustralia.com.au/files/2010/01/HTA-Comparison-Report-Updated-July-26-2011-STC.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015).
9. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drug - same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402-404.
10. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12:404-406.
11. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: Challenges ahead. App Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:15-26.
12. World Health Organisation. Institutionalisation of Health Technology Assessment. WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2001. http://www.euro.who.int/-data/assets/pdf-file/0016/120247/E72364.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015).
13. Kristensen F. EUnetHTA and health policy-making in Europe. Euro-Health. 2006;12:36-38.
14. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244-258.
15. Rogowski WH, Hartz SC, John JH. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.
16. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: The fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329:972-975.
17. ISPOR HTA in Reimbursement Working Group. Survey to assess current methods used globally in health technology assessment and health care reimbursement. 2013. http://www.ispor.org/sigs/hta-ebr/htasurvey.asp (accessed March 4, 2015).
18. Department of Essential Health Technologies. Health technology assessment of medical devices. WHO Medical device technical series. Geneva World Health Organisation, 2011. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501361-eng.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015).
19. Siegal K, Schrimasha W. Coping with negative emotions: The cognitive strategies of HIV-infected Gay/Bisexual men. J Health Psychol. 2000;5:517-530.
20. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Methodological guidelines for appraisals on health technologies assessment for the Ministry of Health of Brazil. 2014. http://www.htai2014.org/temp/20147480584/OR145.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015).
21. Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Review of health technology assessment in Australia. 2011. http://www.health.gov.au/htareview (accessed March 4, 2015).
22. MaRS. What is MaRS EXCITE? http://www.marsdd.com/systems-change/mars-excite/mars-excite/ (accessed March 4, 2015).
23. ClinicalTrials.gov. A study of renal denervation in patients with treatment resistant hypertension (PaCE). 2013. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01895140 (accessed March 4, 2015).
24. th Annual Meeting. Washington DC; 2014. http://www.htai2014.org/temp/201452638552/HTAI-AbstractVolume-web1.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015).
25. Tarricone R, Torbica A, Ferré F, Drummond M. Generating appropriate clinical data for value assessment of medical devices: What role does regulation play? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:707-718.
26. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
27. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012.
28. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GC, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:21-47.