Economic methods used in health technology assessment

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Klímová, Blanka
dc.contributor.author Marešová, Petra
dc.contributor.other Ekonomická fakulta cs
dc.date.accessioned 2018-03-29
dc.date.available 2018-03-29
dc.date.issued 2018-03-29
dc.identifier.issn 1212-3609
dc.identifier.uri https://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/22790
dc.description.abstract Early decision-making process about the development of a new product is essential for any company in order to gain relevant financial returns and thus prosper. Therefore, managers need to have at their disposal appropriate assessment tools which assist them in their decisions about the development of the new product and guarantee that their product will generate a desirable profit. The purpose of this review focuses on the exploration of the methodology, commonly used in the economic evaluation as part of health technology assessment for medical devices. On the basis of the selected original studies, the authors summarize the main methods used in the decision-making processes about the development of new medical devices and discuss their benefits and limitations. The methods employed in this study include a method of literature search in the databases Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Embase, and a method of comparison and evaluation of the results. The findings of this study indicate that the most preferred methods used in the economic evaluations of medical device development are cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. In addition, the Headroom Method is recommended to be used in the early assessment of the medical device development since it uses broader estimates of potential by determining the maximum reimbursable price of the new device. Selection of each method then depends on the research question, the condition of interest, and the availability of data on outcomes. There is an urgent need to conduct the early assessment of the medical device development in order to avoid negatively high costs and prevent a failure rate at each stage of the development process. en
dc.format text
dc.format.extent 11 stran cs
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Technická Univerzita v Liberci cs
dc.publisher Technical university of Liberec, Czech Republic en
dc.relation.ispartof Ekonomie a Management cs
dc.relation.ispartof Economics and Management en
dc.relation.isbasedon Ashby, R. L., Gabe, R., Ali, S., et al. (2014). VenUS IV (Venous Leg Ulcer Study IV) – Compression Hosiery Compared with Compression Bandaging in the Treatment of Venous Leg Ulcers: A Randomised Controlled Trial, Mixed-Treatment Comparison and Decision-Analytic Model. Health Technology Assessment, 18(57), 1-293. https://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta18570.
dc.relation.isbasedon Brockis, E., Marsden, G., Cole, A. et al. (2006). A Review of NICE Methods across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Differences, Justifications and Implications (Research Paper 16/03). Office of Health Economics. Retrieved from https://www.ohe.org/publications/review-nice-methods-across-health-technology-assessment-programmes-differences#.
dc.relation.isbasedon Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Retrieved July, 9, 2017, from http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/themes/inahta/img/AboutHTA_Guidelines_for_the_Economic_Evaluation_of_Health_Technologies.pdf.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ciani, O., Wilcher, B., Blankart, C. R. et al. (2015). Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices: A Survey of Non-European Union Agencies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 31(3), 154-165. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000185.
dc.relation.isbasedon Chapman, A. M., Taylor, C. A., & Girling, A. J. (2013). Early HTA to Inform Medical Device Development Decisions – the Headroom Method. In R. L. Roa (Ed.), XIII Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2013. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 41 (pp. 1151-1154). Springer, Cham. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00846-2_285.
dc.relation.isbasedon Cooper, N. J., Spiegelhalter, D., Bujkiewicz, S. et al. (2013). Use of Implicit and Explicit Bayesian Methods in Health Technology Assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 29(3), 336-342. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462313000354.
dc.relation.isbasedon Craig, J., Carr, Z., Hutten, J. et al. (2014). A Review of the Economic Tools for Assessing New Medical Devices. Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 13(1), 15-27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0123-8.
dc.relation.isbasedon Downing, J., El Ayadi, A., Miller, S. et al. (2015). Cost-Effectiveness of the Non-Pneumatic Anti-Shock Garment (NASG): Evidence from a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Zambia and Zimbabwe. BMC Health Serv Res, 15(37). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0694-6.
dc.relation.isbasedon Dozet, A., Ivarsson, B., Eklund, K. et al. (2016). Radiography on Wheels Arrives to Nursing Homes – An Economic Assessment of a New Health Care Technology in Southern Sweden. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 22(6), 990-997. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jep.12590.
dc.relation.isbasedon Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G. et al. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: OUP.
dc.relation.isbasedon Drummond, M., Griffin, A., & Tarricone, R. (2009). Economic Evaluation for Devices and Drugs, Same or Different? Value in Health, 12(4), 402-404. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_1.x.
dc.relation.isbasedon Duenas, A. (2013). Cost-Minimization Analysis. In M. D. Gellman, & J. R. Turner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine (pp. 513). New York: Springer.
dc.relation.isbasedon EUPATI. (2017). Economic evaluation in HTA. Retrieved July, 9, 2017, from https://www.eupati.eu/health-technology-assessment/economic-evaluation-in-hta/.
dc.relation.isbasedon Featherstone, R. C., Dobson, J., Ederle, J. et al. (2016). Carotid Artery Stenting Compared with Endarterectomy in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): A Randomised Controlled Trial with Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Health Technol Assess, 20(20), 1-94. https://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta20200.
dc.relation.isbasedon Gavurova, B., & Soltes, M. (2016). System of day surgery in Slovakia: analysis of pediatric day surgery discrepancies in the regions and their importance in strategy of its development. E&M Ekonomie a Management, 19(1), 74-92. .
dc.relation.isbasedon Gavurova, B., & Vagasova, T. (2016). Regional differences of standardised mortality rates for ischemic heart diseases in the Slovak Republic for the period 1996-2013 in the context of income inequality. Health Economics Review, 6(21). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-016-0099-1.
dc.relation.isbasedon Girling, A., Lilford, R., Cole, A. et al. (2015). Headroom Approach to Device Development: Current and Future Directions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 31(5), 331-338. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000501.
dc.relation.isbasedon Harron, K., Mok, Q., Dwan, K. et al. (2016). CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): A Randomised Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation Comparing Impregnated and Standard Central Venous Catheters in Children. Health Technol Assess, 20(18), 1-219. https://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta20180.
dc.relation.isbasedon Heintz, E., Gerber-Grote, A., Ghabri, S. et al. (2016). Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries. PharmacoEconomics, 34(1), 59-76. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0328-1.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ivlev, I., Kneppo, P., & Barták, M. (2015). Method for selecting expert groups and determining the importance of experts' judgments for the purpose of managerial decision-making tasks in health system. E&M Ekonomie a Management, 18(2), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2015-2-005.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ivlev, I., Kneppo, P., & Bartak, M. (2014). Multicriteria decision analysis: a multifaceted approach to medical equipment management. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(3), 576-589. https://doi.org 10.3846/20294913.2014.943333
dc.relation.isbasedon Johal, S., & Williams, H. (2007). Decision-making tools for medical device development. Retrieved July, 9, 2017, from http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/match/Publications/johal_ABHI_focus_magazine_march_2007.pdf
dc.relation.isbasedon Kuca, K., Soukup, O., Maresova, P. et al. (2016). Current Approaches against Alzheimer's Disease in Clinical Trials. J Med Chem, 27, 641-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0103-5053.20160048.
dc.relation.isbasedon Lall, R., Hamilton, P., Young, D. et al. (2015). A Randomized Controlled Trial and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation against Conventional Artificial Ventilation for Adults with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The OSCAR (OSCillation in ARDS) Study. Health Technol Assess, 19(23), 1-177. https://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta19230.
dc.relation.isbasedon Maresova, P., Klimova, B., Novotny, M. et al. (2016). Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases: Expected Economic Impact on Europe-A Call for a Uniform European Strategy. J Alzheimers Dis, 54(3), 1123-1133. https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160484.
dc.relation.isbasedon Maresova, P., Klimova, B., & Kuca, K. (2015). Alzheimer’s Disease: Cost Cuts Call for Novel Drugs Development and National Strategy. Česká a slovenská farmacie, 64, 25-30.
dc.relation.isbasedon Maresova, P., Klimova, B., Krejcar, O. et al. (2015a). Legislative Aspects of the Development of Medical Devices. Česká a slovenská farmacie, 64, 133-138.
dc.relation.isbasedon Maresova, P., Mohelska, H., Dolejs, J., & Kuca, K. (2015b). Socio-economic Aspects of Alzheimer's Disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 12(9), 903-911. https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/156720501209151019111448.
dc.relation.isbasedon Markewicz, K., van Til, J. A., & Ijzerman, M. J. (2014). Medical Devices Early Assessment Methods: Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 30(2), 137-146. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462314000026.
dc.relation.isbasedon Marshall, J. D., Harries, M., Hill, D. et al. (2015). Trends in the Use of Cost-Minimization Analysis in Economic Assessments Submitted to the SMC. Value in Health, 18(3), A94. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.03.549.
dc.relation.isbasedon Mathes, T., Jacobs, E., Morfeld, J. C. et al. (2013). Methods of International Health Technology Assessment Agencies for Economic Evaluations – A Comparative Analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 13(371). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-371.
dc.relation.isbasedon Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative Research in Health Care. Assessing Quality in Qualitative Research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50-52.
dc.relation.isbasedon Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1-6. .
dc.relation.isbasedon Murray, D. W., MacLennan, G. S., Breeman, S. et al. (2014). A Randomised Controlled Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Different Knee Prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). Health Technol Assess, 18(19), 1-235. https://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta18190.
dc.relation.isbasedon National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE.
dc.relation.isbasedon Penner, S. J. (2017). Economics and Financial Management for Nurses and Nurse Leaders. New York: Springer.
dc.relation.isbasedon Pham, B., Tu, H. A. T., Han, D., Pechlivanoglou, P. et al. (2014). Early Economic Evaluation of Emerging Health Technologies: Protocol of a Systematic Review. Systematic Reviews, 3(81). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-81.
dc.relation.isbasedon Rogalewicz, V., Barták, M., & Kubátová, I. (2015). Quality and Availability of Cost data in Czech HTA Research. In CEFE 2015 –Central European Conference in Finance and Economics. Košice: TU Košice.
dc.relation.isbasedon Rogalewicz, V., & Barták, M. (2017). Kontroverze okolo QALY. Vnitřní lékařství, (4). Retrieved from http://www.vnitrnilekarstvi.eu/vnitrni-lekarstvi.
dc.relation.isbasedon Rosenthal, V. D., Udwadia, F. E., Kumar, S. et al. (2015). Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Split-Septum and Single-Use Prefilled Flushing Device vs 3-Way Stopcock on Central-Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates in India: A Randomized Clinical Trial Conducted by the International Nesoconial Infection Control Consortium (INICC). American Journal of Infection Control, 43(10), 1040-1045. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.05.042.
dc.relation.isbasedon Rosina, J., Rogalewicz, V., Ivlev, I. et al. (2014). Health Technology Assessment for Medical Devices. Lekar a technika – Clinician and Technology, 44(3), 23-36.
dc.relation.isbasedon Rotter, J. S., Foerster, D., & Bridges, J. F. (2012). The Changing Role of Economic Evaluation in Valuing Medical Technologies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 12(6), 711-723. https://dx.doi.org/10.1586/erp.12.73.
dc.relation.isbasedon Sinkey, R. G., & Odibo, A. (2016). Cost-Effectiveness of Old and New Technologies for Aneuploidy Screening. Clin Lab Med, 36(2), 237-248. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2016.01.008.
dc.relation.isbasedon Soltes, M., & Gavurova, B. (2015). Quantification and Comparison of Avoidable Mortality – Causal Relations and Modification of Concepts. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(6), 917-938. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1106421.
dc.relation.isbasedon Stephens, J. M., Handke, B., & Dshi, J. A. (2012). International Survey of Methods Used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Does Practice Meet the Principles Proposed for Good Research? Comparative Effectiveness Research, (2), 29-44. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CER.S22984.
dc.relation.isbasedon Smulders, Y. E., van Zon, A., Stegeman, I. et al. (2016). Cost-Utility of Bilateral versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Otol Neurotol, 37(1), 38-45. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000901.
dc.relation.isbasedon Thieken, F. W., Van Mastrigt, G. A. P. G., Burgers, L. T. et al. (2016). How to Prepare a Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations for Clinical Practice Guidelines: Database Selection and Search Strategy Development (part 2/3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 16(6), 705-721. https://dx.doi.org/.
dc.relation.isbasedon Walter, D., van Boeckel, P. G., Groenen, M. J. et al. (2015). Cost Efficacy of Metal Stents for Facilliation of Extrahepatic Bill Duct Obstruction in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology, 149(1), 130-138. https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.012.
dc.relation.isbasedon Weintraub, W., & Cohen, D. (2009). The Limits of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Cardiovascular Perspectives, 2(1), 55-58. https://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.812321.
dc.rights CC BY-NC
dc.subject economic evaluation en
dc.subject methodology en
dc.subject health technology assessment en
dc.subject review en
dc.subject.classification I15
dc.subject.classification M10
dc.title Economic methods used in health technology assessment en
dc.type Article en
dc.publisher.abbreviation TUL
dc.relation.isrefereed true
dc.identifier.doi 10.15240/tul/001/2018-1-008
dc.identifier.eissn 2336-5604
local.relation.volume 21
local.relation.issue 1
local.relation.abbreviation E+M cs
local.relation.abbreviation E&M en
local.faculty Faculty of Economics
local.citation.spage 116
local.citation.epage 126
local.access open
local.fulltext yes
local.filename EM_1_2018_08


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search

Browse

My Account