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

Document Type : Commentary


1 Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, Institute of Public Health Research, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

2 Institute of Public Health Research, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada


Grutters et al show that economic assessments can inform the development of new health technologies at an early stage. This is an important contribution to health services and policy research, which implies a “shift away” from the more traditional forms of academic health economic modeling. Because transforming established disciplinary traditions is both valuable and demanding, we invite scholars to further the discussion on how the value of health innovations should be appraised in view of today’s societal challenges.


Main Subjects

  1. Grutters JPC, Govers T, Nijboer J, Tummers M, van der Wilt GJ, Rovers MM. Problems and promises of health technologies: the role of early health economic modeling. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(10):575-582. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.36
  2. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2(1):26-30. doi:10.1177/135581969700200107
  3. Fasterholdt I, Krahn M, Kidholm K, Yderstraede KB, Pedersen KM. Review of early assessment models of innovative medical technologies. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):870-879. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.006
  4. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B, Miller F, Urbach D, Tailliez S. What leads to better health care 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
  5. Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(2):165-178. doi:10.1586/14737167.8.2.165
  6. Cameron D, Ubels J, Norström F. On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1447828. doi:10.1080/16549716.2018.1447828
  7. Griffiths UK, Legood R, Pitt C. Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low-income, Middle-income and High-income Countries: What are the Differences and Why? Health Econ. 2016;25 Suppl 1:29-41. doi:10.1002/hec.3312
  8. Soarez PC, Novaes HMD. Cost-effectiveness thresholds and the Brazilian Unified National Health System. Cad Saude Publica. 2017;33(4):e00040717. doi:10.1590/0102-311x00040717
  9. Nightingale P, Coad A. Muppets and gazelles: political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2013;23(1):113-143. doi:10.1093/icc/dtt057
  10. Silva HP, Lehoux P, Miller FA, Denis JL. Introducing responsible innovation in health: a policy-oriented framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):90.
  11. Abrishami P, Repping S. Nurturing societal values in and through health innovations: Comment on "What health system challenges should responsible innovation in health address?" Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(10):613-615. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.57
  12. Batayeh BG, Artzberger GH, Williams LDA. Socially responsible innovation in health care: Cycles of actualization. Technol Soc. 2018;53:14-22. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.11.002
  13. Weyrauch T, Herstatt C. What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. Journal of Frugal Innovation. 2017;2(1):1. doi:10.1186/s40669-016-0005-y
  14. Williams LDA. The hard case of white cataracts: Appropriation of surgical science. In: Eradicating blindness: Global health innovation from South Asia. Singapore: Springer; 2019:181-215. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1625-8_6
  15. Rao BC. Advances in science and technology through frugality. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2017;45(1):32-38. doi:10.1109/EMR.2017.2667219
  16. Prime M, Attaelmanan I, Imbuldeniya A, Harris M, Darzi A, Bhatti Y. From Malawi to Middlesex: the case of the Arbutus Drill Cover System as an example of the cost-saving potential of frugal innovations for the UK NHS. BMJ Innov. 2018;4(2):103-110. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2017-000233
Volume 9, Issue 7
July 2020
Pages 309-311
  • Receive Date: 24 October 2019
  • Revise Date: 26 November 2019
  • Accept Date: 27 November 2019
  • First Publish Date: 01 July 2020