Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Medvalue, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

3 Department for Health Evidence, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

4 Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Abstract

Background
To assess whether early health economic modeling helps to distinguish those healthcare innovations that are potentially cost-effective from those that are not potentially cost-effective. We will also study what information is retrieved from the health economic models to inform further development, research and implementation decisions.
 
Methods
We performed secondary analyses on an existing database of 32 health economic modeling assessments of 30 innovations, performed by our group. First, we explored whether the assessments could distinguish innovations with potential cost-effectiveness from innovations without potential cost-effectiveness. Second, we explored which recommendations were made regarding development, implementation and further research of the innovation.
 
Results
Of the 30 innovations, 1 (3%) was an idea that was not yet being developed and 14 (47%) were under development. Eight (27%) innovations had finished development, and another 7 (23%) innovations were on the market. Although all assessments showed that the innovation had the potential to become cost-effective, due to improved patient outcomes, cost savings or both, differences were found in the magnitude of the potential benefits, and the likelihood of reaching this potential. The assessments informed how the innovation could be further developed or positioned to maximize its cost-effectiveness, and informed further research.
 
Conclusion
The early health economic assessments provided insight in the potential cost-effectiveness of an innovation in its intended context, and the associated uncertainty. None of the assessments resulted in a firm ‘no-go’ recommendation, but recommendations could be provided on further research and development in order to maximize value for money.

Highlights

Supplementary File 1 (Download)

Supplementary File 2 (Download)

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • How Useful Are Early Economic Models?; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modelling”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Modeling in Early Stages of Technology Development: Is an Iterative Approach Needed?; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Transforming Disciplinary Traditions; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Characterizing the Validity and Real-World Utility of Health Technology Assessments in Healthcare: Future Directions; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modelling”

          Abstract| PDF

  • Early Health Economic Modelling – Optimizing Development for Medical Device Developers?; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling”

          Abstract | PDF

  •  It’s Not the Model, It’s the Way You Use It: Exploratory Early Health Economics Amid Complexity; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modelling”

          Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects


"Watch the Video Summary"

 

  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 Suppl 1:i47-51. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046227
  2. Lehoux P, Miller FA, Daudelin G, Denis JL. Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(9):509-518. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11
  3. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360(9334):711-715. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09832-X
  4. Levin L. Early Evaluation of New Health Technologies: The Case for Premarket Studies That Harmonize Regulatory and Coverage Perspectives. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(4):207-209. doi:10.1017/S0266462315000422
  5. IJzerman MJ, Koffijberg H, Fenwick E, Krahn M. Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):727-740. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1
  6. Cosh E., Girling A., R. L. Investing in new medical technologies: a decision framework. J Commer Biotechnol. 2007;13(4):263-271.
  7. Girling A, Lilford R, Cole A, Young T. Headroom Approach to Device Development: Current and Future Directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(5):331-338. doi:10.1017/S0266462315000501
  8. Girling A, Young T, Brown C, Lilford R. Early-stage valuation of medical devices: the role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health. 2010;13(5):585-591. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00726.x
  9. Koerber F, Rolauffs B, Rogowski W. Early evaluation and value-based pricing of regenerative medicine technologies. Regen Med. 2013;8(6):747-758. doi:10.2217/rme.13.69
  10. Markiewicz K, van Til JA, Steuten LMG, IJzerman MJ. Commercial viability of medical devices using Headroom and return on investment calculation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016;112:338-346. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.041
  11. Chapman AM, Taylor CA, Girling AJ. Early HTA to Inform Medical Device Development Decisions – The Headroom Method. In: Roa Romero LM, ed. XIII Mediterranean Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Computing (IFMBE Proceedings) Vol 41. Seville, Spain: Springer International Publishing; 2013:1151-1154.
  12. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM, Force I-SMGRPT. Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796-803. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012
  13. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--2. Value Health. 2012;15(6):804-811. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.016
  14. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835-842. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014
  15. Wack P. Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead. Harvard Business Review. 1985(September).
  16. Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for Economic Evaluation in Healthcare. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2016.
  17. 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
  18. Kluytmans A, Tummers M, Van der Wilt GJ, Grutters JPC. Early Assessment of Proof-of-Problem to Guide Health Innovation. Value Health. 2019; Forthcoming.
  19. Ector G, Govers TM, Westerweel PE, Grutters JPC, Blijlevens NMA. The potential health gain and cost savings of improving adherence in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019. doi:10.1080/10428194.2018.1535113
  20. Dijkstra S, Govers TM, Hendriks RJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics - a decision analytical model. BJU Int. 2017;120(5):659-665. doi:10.1111/bju.13861
  21. Grutters JP, van Asselt MB, Chalkidou K, Joore MA. Healthy decisions: towards uncertainty tolerance in healthcare policy. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(1):1-4. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0201-7
  22. Rothery C, Claxton K, Palmer S, Epstein D, Tarricone R, Sculpher M. Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs. Health Econ. 2017;26 Suppl 1:109-123. doi:10.1002/hec.3467
  23. Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC.  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2017.117.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2017:117:TOC.  Accessed March 5, 2019.
  24. Rogowski W, John J, IJzerman MJ. Translational Health Economics. In: Scheffler RM, ed. World Scientific Handbook of Global Health Economics and Public Policy. Volume 3 — Health System Characteristics and Performance. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co; 2016.