Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 1/2013

01-02-2013 | Review Article

The Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Challenges Ahead

Authors: Andreas Kirisits, W. Ken Redekop

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

The economic evaluation of medical technology has evolved as a key element in supporting health budget allocation decisions. Among suppliers of innovation, the medical device industry is one of the most dynamic fields of medical progress with thousands of new products marketed every year. Accordingly, the broad variety of technologies covered by the umbrella term ‘medical devices’ have come under increasing scrutiny regarding their cost effectiveness. In the process, a number of device-specific factors have become apparent, each of which can complicate a thorough economic evaluation and limit its informative value. Some of these factors relate to specific characteristics of device functioning. Examples of such factors include the fact that most technologies require, or form part of, a procedure and that many devices have multiple indications or purposes. Others in turn reflect external conditions and are more general in character, such as the regulatory framework that a medical device manufacturer faces prior to market approval and the structure of the medical device industry. Drawing on the available literature, these complicating factors and their practical implications are discussed and used as a basis to elaborate on the emerging challenges for the economic evaluation of medical devices.
Footnotes
1
The Global Harmonization Task Force was formed by national authorities and industrial representatives from the EU, US, Canada, Australia and Japan, with the aim of introducing international uniformity concerning the regulatory approval procedures for new medical devices.
 
Literature
3.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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. 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.
8.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
10.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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. 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.
15.
go back to reference Feigal DW, Gardner SN, McClellan M. Ensuring safe and effective medical devices. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):191–2.PubMedCrossRef Feigal DW, Gardner SN, McClellan M. Ensuring safe and effective medical devices. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):191–2.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kaplan AV, Baim DS, Smith JJ, et al. Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation. 2004;109(25):3068–72.PubMedCrossRef Kaplan AV, Baim DS, Smith JJ, et al. Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation. 2004;109(25):3068–72.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
18.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J. ‘Early warning systems’ for identifying new healthcare technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(13):1–108. Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J. ‘Early warning systems’ for identifying new healthcare technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(13):1–108.
21.
go back to reference Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(11):1006–11.PubMedCrossRef Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(11):1006–11.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995;88(10):552–9.PubMed Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995;88(10):552–9.PubMed
25.
go back to reference O’Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein’s monster or vampire of trials? Med Care. 1996;34(12 Suppl.):DS99–108.PubMed O’Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein’s monster or vampire of trials? Med Care. 1996;34(12 Suppl.):DS99–108.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(13):992–6.PubMedCrossRef Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(13):992–6.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215–8.PubMedCrossRef Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215–8.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–4.PubMedCrossRef Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–4.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):167–78.PubMedCrossRef Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):167–78.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Kertesz A, Black SE, Nicholson L, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI in stroke. Neurology. 1987;37(10):1580–5.PubMedCrossRef Kertesz A, Black SE, Nicholson L, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI in stroke. Neurology. 1987;37(10):1580–5.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
41.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Fineberg HV. Technology assessment: motivation, capability and future directions. Med Care. 1985;23(5):663–71.PubMedCrossRef Fineberg HV. Technology assessment: motivation, capability and future directions. Med Care. 1985;23(5):663–71.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):79–85.PubMedCrossRef Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):79–85.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.PubMedCrossRef McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Wild C, Langer T. Emerging health technologies: informing and supporting health policy early. Health Policy. 2008;87(2):160–71.PubMedCrossRef Wild C, Langer T. Emerging health technologies: informing and supporting health policy early. Health Policy. 2008;87(2):160–71.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
56.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Berry MG, Stanek JJ. The PIP mammary prosthesis: a product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(6):697–704.PubMedCrossRef Berry MG, Stanek JJ. The PIP mammary prosthesis: a product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(6):697–704.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference 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. 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.
60.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
61.
go back to reference Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43(7 Suppl.):5–14.PubMed Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43(7 Suppl.):5–14.PubMed
Metadata
Title
The Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices
Challenges Ahead
Authors
Andreas Kirisits
W. Ken Redekop
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing AG
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-012-0006-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 1/2013 Go to the issue