Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges
-
Published:2021-06-12
Issue:8
Volume:22
Page:1253-1273
-
ISSN:1618-7598
-
Container-title:The European Journal of Health Economics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Health Econ
Author:
Federici CarloORCID, Reckers-Droog Vivian, Ciani Oriana, Dams Florian, Grigore Bogdan, Kaló Zoltán, Kovács Sándor, Shatrov Kosta, Brouwer Werner, Drummond Michael
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization.
Methods
We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years.
Results
We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion.
Conclusions
CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers’ perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference25 articles.
1. Garrison, L.P., Towse, A., Briggs, A., de Pouvourville, G., Grueger, J., Mohr, P.E., et al.: Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements—good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health 16(5), 703–719 (2013) 2. Levin, L., Goeree, R., Levine, M., Krahn, M., Easty, T., Brown, A., et al.: Coverage with evidence development: the Ontario experience. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27(2), 159–168 (2011) 3. Tunis, S.R., Pearson, S.D.: Coverage options for promising technologies: medicare’s ‘coverage with evidence development.’ Health Aff. 25(5), 1218–1230 (2006) 4. Dabbous, M., Chachoua, L., Caban, A., Toumi, M.: Managed entry agreements: policy analysis from the European perspective. Value Health 23(4), 425–433 (2020) 5. Schaffer, S.K., Messner, D., Mestre-Ferrandiz, J., Tambor, E., Towse, A.: Paying for cures: perspectives on solutions to the “Affordability Issue.” Value Health 21(3), 276–279 (2018)
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|