IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v12y2014i4p347-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)

Author

Listed:
  • A. Chapman
  • C. Taylor
  • A. Girling

Abstract

The economic evaluation of medical products and services is increasingly prioritised by healthcare decision makers and plays a key role in informing funding allocation decisions. It is well known that there are a number of methodological difficulties in the health technology assessment of medical devices, particularly in the provision of efficacy evidence. By contrasting devices with pharmaceuticals, the way in which the differing systems of innovation mould the UK’s industry landscape is described and substantiated with market statistics. In recognition of the challenges faced by industry, as well as the growing need for cost-effective allocation of National Health Service (NHS) resources, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) led the development of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP), which launched in 2009/2010. The review of the UK’s medical devices market supports the programme’s three principal aims: to simplify access to evaluation, speed up the process, and increase evaluative capacity for devices within NICE. However, an analysis of the output of MTEP’s first 3 years suggests that it has some way to go to meet each of these aims. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Suggested Citation

  • A. Chapman & C. Taylor & A. Girling, 2014. "Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 347-357, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:12:y:2014:i:4:p:347-357
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-014-0104-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40258-014-0104-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-014-0104-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    2. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    3. Cookson, Richard & Hutton, John, 2003. "Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 167-178, February.
    4. Hawe, E. & Yuen, P. & Baillie, L., 2011. "OHE Guide to UK Health and Health Care Statistics," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000178.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Michael & Drummond, Michael & Taylor, David & McGuire, Alistair & Carter, Paul & Mossialos, Elias, 2022. "Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 224-233.
    2. Oriana Ciani & Britni Wilcher & Anoukh van Giessen & Rod S. Taylor, 2017. "Linking the Regulatory and Reimbursement Processes for Medical Devices: The Need for Integrated Assessments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 13-29, February.
    3. Emma Cowles & Grace Marsden & Amanda Cole & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 469-477, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Bridges, 2006. "Lean Systems Approaches to Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 101-109, December.
    2. Velasco Garrido, Marcial & Gerhardus, Ansgar & Røttingen, John-Arne & Busse, Reinhard, 2010. "Developing Health Technology Assessment to address health care system needs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 196-202, March.
    3. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    4. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    5. Phill O’Neill & Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Ruth Puig-Peiro & Jon Sussex, 2013. "Projecting Expenditure on Medicines in the UK NHS," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 933-957, October.
    6. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    7. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    8. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    9. Francesca Iandolo & Pietro Vito & Irene Fulco & Francesca Loia, 2018. "From Health Technology Assessment to Health Technology Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Su, Tin Tin & Sanon, Mamadou & Flessa, Steffen, 2007. "Assessment of indirect cost-of-illness in a subsistence farming society by using different valuation methods," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 353-362, October.
    11. Marc Le Menestrel, 2001. "A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 249-262, May.
    12. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    13. Hartz, Susanne & John, Jürgen, 2009. "Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 184-192, February.
    14. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    15. Gabriele Palozzi & Sandro Brunelli & Camilla Falivena, 2018. "Higher Sustainability and Lower Opportunistic Behaviour in Healthcare: A New Framework for Performing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Livio Garattini & Anna Padula, 2020. "HTA for pharmaceuticals in Europe: will the mountain deliver a mouse?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 1-5, February.
    17. Sebastian Gurtner, 2013. "An analysis of the influence of framework aspects on the study design of health economic modeling evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 221-230, April.
    18. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Distinguishing between the method and its application," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    19. Wailoo, Allan & Anand, Paul, 2005. "The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 223-236, January.
    20. J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:12:y:2014:i:4:p:347-357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.