Lehoux, P., Miller, F., Daudelin, G., Denis, J. (2017). Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(9), 509-518. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11
Pascale Lehoux; Fiona A. Miller; Geneviève Daudelin; Jean-Louis Denis. "Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies". International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6, 9, 2017, 509-518. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11
Lehoux, P., Miller, F., Daudelin, G., Denis, J. (2017). 'Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies', International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(9), pp. 509-518. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11
Lehoux, P., Miller, F., Daudelin, G., Denis, J. Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2017; 6(9): 509-518. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11
Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies
1Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada
2Institute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM), Montréal, QC, Canada
3University of Montreal Chair on Responsible Innovation in Health Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada
4Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
5École Nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), Quebec City, QC, Canada
6Department of Management, Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy, King’s College, London, UK
Abstract
Background New technologies constitute an important cost-driver in healthcare, but the dynamics that lead to their emergence remains poorly understood from a health policy standpoint. The goal of this paper is to clarify how entrepreneurs, investors, and regulatory agencies influence the value of emerging health technologies.
Methods Our 5-year qualitative research program examined the processes through which new health technologies were envisioned, financed, developed and commercialized by entrepreneurial clinical teams operating in Quebec’s (Canada) publicly funded healthcare system.
Results Entrepreneurs have a direct influence over a new technology’s value proposition, but investors actively transform this value. Investors support a technology that can find a market, no matter its intrinsic value for clinical practice or healthcare systems. Regulatory agencies reinforce the “double” value of a new technology —as a health intervention and as an economic commodity— and provide economic worth to the venture that is bringing the technology to market.
Conclusion Policy-oriented initiatives such as early health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage with evidence may provide technology developers with useful input regarding the decisions they make at an early stage. But to foster technologies that bring more value to healthcare systems, policy-makers must actively support the consideration of health policy issues in innovation policy.
Dixon-Woods M, Amalberti R, Goodman S, Bergman B, Glasziou P. Problems and promises of innovation: why healthcare needs to rethink its love/hate relationship with the new. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:i47-i51 doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046227 2
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2005;61(2):417-430. Doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001
Gelijns AC, Russo MJ, Hong KN, Brown LD, Ascheim DD, Moskowitz AJ. Dynamics of device innovation: implications for assessing value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(04):365-373. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000561
Leonardi PM, Barley S. What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Acad Manag Ann 2010;4(1):1-51. Doi: 10.1080/19416521003654160
Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B, Miller F, Urbach D, Tailliez S. What leads to better health innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(4):251-254. Doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007173
Henshall C, Schuller T. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):353-359. Doi:10.1017/S0266462313000378
Markiewicz K, van Til JA, Ijzerman MJ. Medical devices early assessment methods: systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):137-146. Doi:10.1017/S0266462314000026
Nielsen CP, Funch TM, Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment: research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(Suppl 2):6-15. Doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011050
Pietzsch JB, Paté-Cornell ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):36-44.
Lehoux P, Miller FA, Daudelin G, Urbach DR. How venture capital decide which new medical technologies come to exist? Sci Public Policy. 2015;43(3):375-385. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv051
Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS. The role of business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind Corp Change 2002;11(3):529-555. Doi:10.1093/icc/11.3.529
Sapolsky H. M. Managing the Medical Arms Race: Innovation and Public Policy in the Medical Device Industry. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1994;19(3):668-669.
Sampat B, Drummond M. Another special relationship? Interactions between health technology policies and health care systems in the United States and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2011;36(1):119-139. Doi:10.1215/03616878-1191126
Garber S, Gates SM, Keeler EB. Redirecting Innovation in US Health Care: Options to Decrease Spending and Increase Value. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2014.
Robinson JC. Biomedical innovation in the era of health care spending constraints. Health Aff. 2015;34(2):203-209. Doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0975
Braunerhjelm P, Henrekson M. Entrepreneurship, institutions, and economic dynamism: lessons from a comparison of the United States and Sweden. Ind Corp Change. 2013;22(1):107-130. Doi:10.1093/icc/dts048
Hirsch-Kreinsen H. Financial market and technological innovation. Ind Innov. 2011;18(4):351-368. Doi:10.1080/13662716.2011.573954
Nightingale P, Coad A. Muppets and gazelles: political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research. Ind Corp Change. 2014;23(1):113-143. Doi:10.1093/icc/dtt057
Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Hivon M, Miller FA, Denis JL. How do values shape technology design? An exploration of what makes the pursuit of health and wealth legitimate in academic spin-offs. Sociol Health Illn. 2014 Jun;36(5):738-755. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12097
Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Williams-Jones B, Denis JL, Longo C. How do business models and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Res Policy. 2014;43(6):1025-1038. Doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.001
Sutton RI. The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organ Sci. 1997;8(1):97-106.
Flyvbjerg B. Case study (301-316). In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2011.
McCulloch P. The EU’s system for regulating medical devices. BMJ. 2012;345:e7126. Doi:10.1136/bmj.e7126.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629.
Campbell B. How to judge the value of innovation: more evidence is needed but “promise” is important early on. BMJ. 2012;344:e1457. Doi:10.1136/bmj.e1457
Top