Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada

2 Institute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM), Montréal, QC, Canada

3 University of Montreal Chair on Responsible Innovation in Health Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada

4 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

5 École Nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), Quebec City, QC, Canada

6 Department 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.

Highlights

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • The Bright Elusive Butterfly of Value in Health Technology Development; Comment on “Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies”

          Abstract | PDF

  • New Health Technologies: A UK Perspective; Comment on “Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies”

          Abstract | PDF

  • The Conceptualization of Value in the Value Proposition of New Health Technologies; Comment on “Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies”

          Abstract | PDF

 

Authors' Response to the Commentaries

  • Why Learning How to Chase Butterflies Matters: A Response to Recent Commentaries

          Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. 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
  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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Pietzsch JB, Paté-Cornell ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):36-44.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Hirsch-Kreinsen H. Financial market and technological innovation. Ind Innov. 2011;18(4):351-368. Doi:10.1080/13662716.2011.573954
  18. 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
  19. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017. Innovation in SMEs. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-sme_en.pdf.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Sutton RI. The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organ Sci. 1997;8(1):97-106.
  23. 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.
  24. McCulloch P. The EU’s system for regulating medical devices. BMJ. 2012;345:e7126. Doi:10.1136/bmj.e7126.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. Blomqvist A, Busby C, Husereau D. Capturing value from health technologies in lean times. CD Howe Institute Commentary No. 396. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2369403. Published 2013.
  28. Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation. Unleashing innovation: Excellent healthcare for Canada. http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/health-system-systeme-sante/summary-innovation-sommaire/index-eng.php. Published 2015.
  29. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42(9):1568-1580. Doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 6, Issue 9
September 2017
Pages 509-518

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 October 2016
  • Revise Date: 20 January 2017
  • Accept Date: 21 January 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics