IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i2d10.1007_s40258-018-0438-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Devices, Diagnostics and Digital Technologies: A Review of NICE Medical Technologies Guidance

Author

Listed:
  • Francisca Crispi

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • Huseyin Naci

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • Eva Barkauskaite

    (NICE Scientific Advice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Leeza Osipenko

    (NICE Scientific Advice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Elias Mossialos

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

Abstract

Background The Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) of NICE in England aims to evaluate medical devices that are deemed to be cost-saving or cost-neutral and produce Medical Technology Guidance (MTG) to encourage their adoption. Objective To review the MTGs since MTEP’s inception in 2009 until February 2017. Methods One researcher assessed all published MTGs and extracted data on the clinical and economic evidence supporting each technology. The NICE Committee’s decision outcome for each assessment was also recorded. A qualitative analysis was performed on technologies that were not supported for adoption to identify the main drivers of the decision. Results Thirty-one MTGs were reviewed. The committee fully supported the medical devices in 14 MTGs, 11 were partially supported and six were not supported. Of the MTGs, 58% had no RCT data available and the main source of evidence came from non-experimental studies. There was no statistically significant difference in the average number of RCTs and non-experimental studies between the fully-supported, partially-supported, and not-supported technologies. Whilst all the fully-supported MTGs demonstrated cost-saving results, only 50% of the not-supported MTGs did. The sponsor estimated a higher average cost-saving than the EAC in most of the cases (20/31). The qualitative evaluation suggests that the main drivers for negative decisions were the quantity or quality of studies, and costs incurred in the economic evaluation results. Conclusions The main drivers of the decision-making process are the quality and quantity of the submitted evidence supporting the technologies, as well as the economic evaluation results.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisca Crispi & Huseyin Naci & Eva Barkauskaite & Leeza Osipenko & Elias Mossialos, 2019. "Assessment of Devices, Diagnostics and Digital Technologies: A Review of NICE Medical Technologies Guidance," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 189-211, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0438-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0438-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0438-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0438-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. Claire Rothery & Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & David Epstein & Rosanna Tarricone & Mark Sculpher, 2017. "Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 109-123, February.
    2. 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.
    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.

    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. Michael Drummond & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica, 2016. "Incentivizing research into the effectiveness of medical devices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1055-1058, December.
    2. Aleksandra Torbica & Rosanna Tarricone & Jonas Schreyögg & Mike Drummond, 2022. "Pushing the boundaries of evaluation, diffusion, and use of medical devices in Europe: Insights from the COMED project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 1-9, September.
    3. Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers-Droog & Oriana Ciani & Florian Dams & Bogdan Grigore & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Kosta Shatrov & Werner Brouwer & Michael Drummond, 2021. "Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1253-1273, November.
    4. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.
    5. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Salah Ghabri & Irina Cleemput & Jean-Michel Josselin, 2018. "Towards a New Framework for Addressing Structural Uncertainty in Health Technology Assessment Guidelines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 127-130, February.
    7. Dale, Elina & Evans, David B. & Gopinathan, Unni & Kurowski, Christoph & Norheim, Ole F. & Ottersen, Trygve & Voorhoeve, Alex, 2023. "Open and inclusive: fair processes for financing universal health coverage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119795, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Michael Drummond & Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Aleksandra Torbica & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Oriana Ciani & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Werner Brouwer, 2022. "Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 179-194, September.
    9. Sopany Saing & Naomi van der Linden & Christopher Hayward & Stephen Goodall, 2019. "Why is There Discordance between the Reimbursement of High-Cost ‘Life-Extending’ Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices? The Funding of Ventricular Assist Devices in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 421-431, August.
    10. James Love-Koh & Alison Peel & Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla & Kate Ennis & Rosemary Lovett & Andrea Manca & Anastasia Chalkidou & Hannah Wood & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1439-1451, December.
    11. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 5-12, February.
    12. Sandor Kovács & Zoltán Kaló & Rita Daubner‐Bendes & Katarzyna Kolasa & Rok Hren & Tomas Tesar & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Werner Brouwer & Carlo Federici & Mike Drummond & Antal Tamás Zemplényi, 2022. "Implementation of coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: A decision tool for late technology adopter countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 195-206, September.
    13. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond & for the MedtecHTA Project Group, 2017. "Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 145-152, February.
    14. Tarricone, Rosanna & Amatucci, Fabio & Armeni, Patrizio & Banks, Helen & Borsoi, Ludovica & Callea, Giuditta & Ciani, Oriana & Costa, Francesco & Federici, Carlo & Torbica, Aleksandra & Marletta, Marc, 2021. "Establishing a national HTA program for medical devices in Italy: Overhauling a fragmented system to ensure value and equal access to new medical technologies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 602-608.
    15. David Epstein, 2019. "Beyond the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve: The appropriateness of rank probabilities for presenting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 801-807, June.
    16. Sabine Elisabeth Grimm & Mark Strong & Alan Brennan & Allan J. Wailoo, 2017. "The HTA Risk Analysis Chart: Visualising the Need for and Potential Value of Managed Entry Agreements in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(12), pages 1287-1296, December.

    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:17:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0438-y. 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.