Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first year is considered to start from the meeting date in which MTAC first discussed specific technologies [19]: July 2010. Reference to MTG output for the first 3 years of MTEP therefore refers to July 2010 to July 2013.

  2. The remaining 8 % appraised surgical procedures, imaging techniques, behavioural therapies, training/education programmes, and processes.

  3. Seven diagnostics guidance documents were published in the same three year timeframe.

References

  1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2003;63(2):121–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, Tremblay M, Bramley-Harker E, Henshall C. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(1):10–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs—same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):404–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):15–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wanless D. Securing our future health: taking a long-term view. 2002. Report No.: Final Report. HM Treasurey; London; April 2002.

  7. House of Commons Health Committee. The use of new medical technologies within the NHS; 2005. Report No.: 5. 5 April 2005.

  8. Department of Health. High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report; 2008. 6/200 Report No.: CM 7432.

  9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme process guide and methods guide. NICE [Internet]; 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/aboutmedicaltechnologies/MTEPProcessGuideAndMethodsGuide.jsp. 14 May 2011.

  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC): terms of reference; 2010. Report No.: Final. 8 July 2010.

  11. Campbell B, Campbell M. NICE medical technologies guidance: a novel and rigorous methodology to address a new health technology assessment challenge. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):295–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell G. Statistics in the world of medical devices: the contrast with pharmaceuticals. J Biopharm Stat. 2008;18(1):4–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. WHO. World Health Organisation: Clinical evidence for medical devices: regulatory processes focussing on Europe and the United States of America; 2010. Report No.: [Background Paper 3]. Aug 2010.

  14. HM Government. Strength and opportunity 2011: The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors in the UK; 2011. Report No.: 3. Dec 2011.

  15. Wilkinson J. The Medical Technology Industry in Europe. EUCOMED Medical TechnologyBrussels presentation [Internet]; 2011. http://www.eucomed.org/uploads/Modules/Publications/110527_the_medical_technology_industry_in_europe.pdf. 1 June 2011.

  16. IMS. Top-Line Market Data 2011; 2011. http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/ims/menuitem.5ad1c081663fdf9b41d84b903208c22a/?vgnextoid=fbc65890d33ee210VgnVCM10000071812ca2RCRD.

  17. Longson C. Foreward by the Director of the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation. J R Soc Med. 2012;105 Suppl 1:S2-S.

  18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Measuring the use of NICE guidance. NICE online [Internet]; 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/measuringtheuseofguidance/evaluation_and_review_of_nice_implementation_evidence_ernie.jsp. 29 May 2013.

  19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). MTAC Minutes of the Meeting on Thursday 17th June 2010. NICE [Internet]; 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/AA3/FE/MTACMeetingMinutes170610.pdf. 16 Oct 2010.

  20. Eucomed. Medical Technology [Internet]; 2011. http://www.eucomed.org/. 6 June 2011.

  21. BIS. Healthcare Technology. Department for Business Innovation & Skills [Internet]; 2009. http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/biotechnology-pharmaceuticals-and-healthcare/healthcare-technology. 28 Nov 2009.

  22. BIS. R&D Scoreboard. Department for Business Innovation & Skills [Internet]; 2009. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dius.gov.uk/innovation/statistics_and_analysis/randd_scoreboard/sector_summaries/pharma_biotech. 27 Nov 2009.

  23. ABPI. Knowledge hub. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry [Internet]; 2011. http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/Pages/default.aspx. 4 April 2011.

  24. HM Government. Strength and Opportunity 2012. The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors in the UK; 2012. Report No.: 4. Dec 2012.

  25. Karlberg J. Industry sponsored medical device clinical trials. Clinical Trial Magnifier. 2009;2(7):348–60.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):167–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Becker KM, Whyte JJ. Clinical evaluation of medical devices: principles and case studies. 2nd ed. Totowa: Humana Press; 2006. p. 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T. Trials in surgery. Br J Surg. 2004;91(1):6–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wittes J. Clinical trials of the effectiveness of devices: an analogy with drugs. Surgery. 2001;129(5):517–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does, “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):699–707.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13 Suppl 2:ii54–ii8.

  32. Tarricone R, Drummond M. Challenges in the clinical and economic evaluation of medical devices: the case of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Med Marketing. 2011;11(3):221–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gelijns A, Russo M, Hong K, Brown L, Ascheim D, Moskowitz A. Dynamics of device innovation: implications for assessing value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):365–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Notify a product to the Medical Technology Evaluation Programme. NICE [Internet]; 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/aboutmedicaltechnologies/notifyaproducttoep.jsp. 24 April 2012.

  35. Campbell B. NICE medical technologies guidance: aims for clinical practice. Perioper Med. 2013;2(15).

  36. Hogan M. NICE To Seek Candidates For New-Tech Evaluation Program In First Half Of ‘10. EuroPharma Today [Internet]; 2009. http://www.europharmatoday.com/2009/12/nice-to-seek-candidates-for-newtech-evaluation-program-in-first-half-of-10-.html. 7 Jan 2010.

  37. Sprange K, Clift M. The NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP): manufacturer submission challenges. J R Soc Med. 2012;105(Suppl 1):S4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoyle M. Historical lifetimes of drugs in England: application to value of information and cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health. 2010;13(8):885–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Holmes DR Jr, Firth BG, Hodgson PK, Rihal CS, Wood DL, Cohen DJ. Evolving challenges in medical device evaluation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the single technology appraisal process; 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/42D/B3/STAGuideLrFinal.pdf. Oct 2009.

  41. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme: PROCESS GUIDE; 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/3A6/14/MedicalTechnologiesEvaluationProgrammeProcessGuideMarch2012.pdf. April 2011.

  42. Hawe E, Yuen P, Baillie L. OHE Guide to UK Health and Health Care Statistics; 2011. Report No.: 978-1-899040-09-4. July 2011.

  43. OECD. OECD Health Data 2012 [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]; 2012. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecdhealthdata.htm. 28 June 2012.

  44. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technology Appraisals. NICE [Internet]; 2011. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA. 26 March 2011.

  45. Yeo A. UK healthcare: the challenge of keeping the momentum going. Clinica [Internet]; 2009. http://www.abhi.org.uk/multimedia/docs/news/2009/Clinica%2016%20December%202009.pdf. 14 May 2012.

  46. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Public Board Meeting (21 July 2010): Agenda & Papers. ITEM 2-Chief Executive’s Report. The Post Graduate Centre, Birmingham; 2010.

  47. Linden L, Vondeling H, Packer C, Cook A. Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence only appraise new pharmaceuticals? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):349–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Health Technologies Adoption Programme; 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/healthtechnologiesadoptionprogramme/HealthTechnologiesAdoptionProgramme.jsp.

  49. Willits I, Keltie K, Craig J, Sims A. Watch BP Home A for opportunistically detecting atrial fibrillation during diagnosis and monitoring of hypertension: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2014;12(3):255–65.

  50. White J, Carolan-Rees G. PleurX peritoneal catheter drainage system for vacuum-assisted drainage of treatment-resistant, recurrent malignant ascites: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):299–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Withers K, Carolan-Rees G, Dale M. Pipeline™ embolization device for the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms: a NICE Medical Technology Guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):5–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001;10(2):179–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE-recommended clinical trial due to start on promising wound healing device. NICE Press releases [Internet]; 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/NICERecommendedClinicalTrialDueToStartOnPromisingWoundHealingDevice.jsp.

  54. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):79–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. NHS England. NHS England invites specialised services providers to take part in its innovative new programme ‘Commissioning through Evaluation’; 2013. http://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/09/26/com-through-eval/. 26 Sep 2013.

  56. Girling A, Young T, Brown C, Lilford R. Early-stage valuation of medical devices: the role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health. 2010;13(5):585–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE Scientific Advice; 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/scientificadvice/AboutScientificAdvice.jsp.

  58. Ambu. Press release: Ambu launches 3rd generation of unique video scope. Ambu Ltd [Internet]; 2013. http://www.ambu.com/corp/investor_relations/ambu_news/newsshow.aspx?Action=1&NewsId=1642&M=NewsV2&PID=22245. 29 May 2013.

  59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). MTG 14. Ambu aScope2 for use in unexpected difficult airways; 2013. Report No.: 14. July 2013.

  60. Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(1):1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Interim process and methods statement for the production of Medtech Innovation Briefings (MIBs); 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/mib.

  62. Eucomed. Medical Technology Brief 2007. Eucomed [Internet]; 2007. http://www.eucomed.org/uploads/Modules/Publications/Medical%20Technology%20Brief%202007.pdf. 8 Nov 2010.

  63. OECD. OECD Health Data 2010 [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]; 2010. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecdhealthdata.htm. June 2010.

  64. HM Government. Strength and Opportunity. The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology and industrial biotechnology sectors in the UK; 2010. Report No.: 2.

  65. Office for Life Sciences. Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint; 2010. Report No.: BIS/1k/01/10/NP. Jan 2010.

  66. HM Government. Strength and Opportunity. The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology and industrial biotechnology enterprises in the UK; 2009. Report No.: 1.

  67. PICTF. Ministerial Industry Strategy Group Pharmaceutical Industry: Competitiveness and Performance Indicators 2009; 2010. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120104125945; http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_113133.pdf. 25 Feb 2010.

  68. BIS. BIS Economics Paper No.2. Life Sciences in the UK—economic analysis and evidence for ‘Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint’; 2010. Report No.: 2.

Download references

Acknowledgments

A.C. now works at the Office of Health Economics, but this work was undertaken and written up whilst she was employed by the University of Birmingham. The authors are grateful to Paul Trueman for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this work, and to Martin Buxton and Samantha Burn for their helpful thoughts and ideas. They are also grateful to for the comments and recommendations of the anonymous peer reviewers.

Disclosures

A.C. and A.G. acknowledge funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under the MATCH Programme (grant EP/F063822/1), though the views expressed are their own. C.T. has no conflicts of interest. When this research was undertaken A.C. was partly funded by NICE through the Birmingham and Brunel Consortium, which is an External Assessment Centre for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. This manuscript was not commissioned or financed under this contract, and NICE has not reviewed the manuscript.

Author contributions

A.C. led the conceptual design and writing of the paper. C.T. and A.G. provided support throughout its conception, write-up, and editing. All authors approved the final version of this manuscript; A.C. is the guarantor of its overall content.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    C. A. Taylor & A. J. Girling

  2. Office of Health Economics, 7th floor Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK

    A. M. Chapman

Authors
  1. A. M. Chapman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. A. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. J. Girling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. M. Chapman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chapman, A.M., Taylor, C.A. & Girling, A.J. Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP). Appl Health Econ Health Policy 12, 347–357 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0104-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0104-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation