Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges

  • Carlo Federici*
  • , Vivian Reckers-Droog
  • , Oriana Ciani
  • , Florian Dams
  • , Bogdan Grigore
  • , Zoltán Kaló
  • , Sándor Kovács
  • , Kosta Shatrov
  • , Werner Brouwer
  • , Michael Drummond
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • SDA Bocconi School of Management
  • Warwick University
  • College of Medicine and Health
  • University of Bern
  • Swiss Institute of Translational and Entrepreneurial Medicine (Sitem-Insel AG)
  • Syreon Research Institute
  • University of York

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

30 Citations (Scopus)
33 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1253-1273
Number of pages21
JournalEuropean Journal of Health Economics
Volume22
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Jun 2021

Bibliographical note

JEL Classifcation: I18

Funding Information:
Open access funding provided by Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This study has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 779306 for the project “Pushing the boundaries of cost and outcome analysis of medical technologies—COMED”.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this