title: Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices.
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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.|Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
authors.forename: Rosanna
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Tarricone
authors.affiliation: Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
authors.forename: Giuditta
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Callea
authors.affiliation: Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
authors.forename: Marko
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ogorevc
authors.affiliation: Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
authors.forename: Valentina
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Prevolnik Rupel
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D004864:Equipment and Supplies / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards
keywords: MedtecHTA; economic evaluation analysis; health technology assessment; medical devices