Economic methods used in health technology assessment

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKlímová, Blanka
dc.contributor.authorMarešová, Petra
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29
dc.date.available2018-03-29
dc.date.issued2018-03-29
dc.description.abstractEarly 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.formattext
dc.format.extent11 strancs
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2018-1-008
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/22790
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonAshby, 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.isbasedonBrockis, 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.isbasedonCanadian 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.isbasedonCiani, 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.isbasedonChapman, 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.isbasedonCooper, 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.isbasedonCraig, 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.isbasedonDowning, 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.isbasedonDozet, 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.isbasedonDrummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G. et al. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: OUP.
dc.relation.isbasedonDrummond, 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.isbasedonDuenas, A. (2013). Cost-Minimization Analysis. In M. D. Gellman, & J. R. Turner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine (pp. 513). New York: Springer.
dc.relation.isbasedonEUPATI. (2017). Economic evaluation in HTA. Retrieved July, 9, 2017, from https://www.eupati.eu/health-technology-assessment/economic-evaluation-in-hta/.
dc.relation.isbasedonFeatherstone, 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.isbasedonGavurova, 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.isbasedonGavurova, 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.isbasedonGirling, 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.isbasedonHarron, 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.isbasedonHeintz, 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.isbasedonIvlev, 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.isbasedonIvlev, 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.isbasedonJohal, 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.isbasedonKuca, 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.isbasedonLall, 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.isbasedonMaresova, 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.isbasedonMaresova, 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.isbasedonMaresova, 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.isbasedonMaresova, 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.isbasedonMarkewicz, 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.isbasedonMarshall, 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.isbasedonMathes, 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.isbasedonMays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative Research in Health Care. Assessing Quality in Qualitative Research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50-52.
dc.relation.isbasedonMoher, 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.isbasedonMurray, 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.isbasedonNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE.
dc.relation.isbasedonPenner, S. J. (2017). Economics and Financial Management for Nurses and Nurse Leaders. New York: Springer.
dc.relation.isbasedonPham, 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.isbasedonRogalewicz, 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.isbasedonRogalewicz, V., & Barták, M. (2017). Kontroverze okolo QALY. Vnitřní lékařství, (4). Retrieved from http://www.vnitrnilekarstvi.eu/vnitrni-lekarstvi.
dc.relation.isbasedonRosenthal, 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.isbasedonRosina, 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.isbasedonRotter, 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.isbasedonSinkey, 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.isbasedonSoltes, 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.isbasedonStephens, 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.isbasedonSmulders, 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.isbasedonThieken, 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.isbasedonWalter, 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.isbasedonWeintraub, 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.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjecteconomic evaluationen
dc.subjectmethodologyen
dc.subjecthealth technology assessmenten
dc.subjectreviewen
dc.subject.classificationI15
dc.subject.classificationM10
dc.titleEconomic methods used in health technology assessmenten
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage126
local.citation.spage116
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_1_2018_08
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue1
local.relation.volume21
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_1_2018_08_new.pdf
Size:
900.48 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 1