Skip to main content
Log in

Are Medical Devices Cost-Effective?

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

Abstract

Objective

Medical devices can offer important therapeutic advances but, as for any medical interventions, there are questions about their costs and benefits. We examined health benefits and costs for pre-market approved (PMA) devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1999–2015), grouping them by generic category (e.g., drug-eluting stents) and indication.

Methods

We searched PubMed for incremental health gain estimates [measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and incremental costs for each device category compared to previously available treatments. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios by dividing the average incremental costs by the average incremental QALY gains. In sensitivity analysis, we repeated the analysis when excluding industry-funded studies.

Results

We identified at least one relevant cost-utility or comparative-effectiveness study for 88 devices (15.9% of non-cosmetic devices approved from 1999 to 2015), and at least one device across 53 (26.2%) generic categories. The median (mean) incremental cost across generic device categories was $1701 ($13,320). The median (mean) incremental health gain across generic device categories was 0.13 (0.46) QALYs. We found that cost-effectiveness ratios for 36 of 53 (68%) and 43 of 53 (81%) device categories fell below (were more favorable than) $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, respectively. Results were roughly similar when we excluded industry-funded studies.

Conclusions

We found that roughly one-quarter of the major PMA medical device categories have published cost-effectiveness evidence accessible through a large, publicly available database. Available evidence suggests that devices generally offer good value, as judged relative to established cost-effectiveness benchmarks.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Healthy Savings: Medical Technology and the Economic Burden of Disease. Milken Institute. 2014. https://www.advamed.org/sites/default/files/resource/714_healthysavingsfinal_0.pdf.). Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

  2. Eastman RC, Leptien AD, Chase HP. Cost-effectiveness of use of the GlucoWatch Biographer in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a preliminary analysis based on a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2003;4:82–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ekman M, Sjogren I, James S. Cost-effectiveness of the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent in the Swedish healthcare system. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2006;40:17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moreno SG, Novielli N, Cooper NJ. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable HeartMate II left ventricular assist device for patients awaiting heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:450–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Premarket Approval (PMA) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm. Accessed 22 Jul 2019.

  6. Neumann P, Ganiats T, Russel L, Sanders G, Siegel J. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:165–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. PubMed. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

  9. Reddy VY, Akehurst RL, Amorosi SL, Gavaghan MB, Hertz DS, Holmes DR Jr. Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device compared with warfarin or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2018;49:1464–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boston Scientific Receives FDA Approval for WATCHMAN™ Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device. 2015. https://news.bostonscientific.com/2015-03-13-Boston-Scientific-Receives-FDA-Approval-for-WATCHMAN-Left-Atrial-Appendage-Closure-Device. Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

  11. Doble B, Blackhouse G, Goeree R, Xie F. Cost-effectiveness of the Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter heart valve compared with standard management and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: a Canadian perspective. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146:52-60 e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Consumer Price Index [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. Accessed 22 Jul 2019.

  13. Foreign exchange rates—H.10 [Internet]. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/Hist/default.htm. Accessed 18 July 2021.

  14. Pulikottil-Jacob R, Suri G, Connock M, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of the HeartWare versus HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices used in the United Kingdom National Health Service bridge-to-transplant program for patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:350–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Final Value Assessment Framework: Updates for 2017–2019. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. 2017. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ICER-value-assessment-framework-Updated-050818.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.

  16. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eisenstein EL, Leon MB, Kandzari DE, et al. Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the cypher sirolimus-eluting stent: 3-year results from the ENDEAVOR III trial (Randomized Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:1199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim DD, Wilkinson CL, Pope EF, Chambers JD, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. The influence of time horizon on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17:615–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chambers JD, Silver MC, Berklein FC, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. Orphan drugs offer larger health gains but less favorable cost-effectiveness than non-orphan drugs. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:2629–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Onwudiwe NC, Baker AM, Belinson S, Gingles B. Assessing the value of medical devices—choosing the best path forward: where do we go from here? Value Outcomes Spotlight. 2017;4:15–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tarricone R, Torbica A, Drummond M. Challenges in the assessment of medical devices: the MedtecHTA project. Health Econ. 2017;26(Suppl 1):5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Basu A, Maciejewski ML. Choosing a time horizon in cost and cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 2019;321:1096–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:117–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James D. Chambers.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by AdvaMed.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Availability of data and material

Available upon request.

Code availability

Available on request.

Ethics approval

The authors obtained an institutional review board waiver for this study.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by James D. Chambers, Madison C. Silver, and Flora C. Berklein. The first draft of the manuscript was written by James D. Chambers and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 95 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chambers, J.D., Silver, M.C., Berklein, F.C. et al. Are Medical Devices Cost-Effective?. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 20, 235–241 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00698-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00698-6

Navigation