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

Francisca Crispi, Huseyin Naci (), Eva Barkauskaite, Leeza Osipenko and Elias Mossialos
Additional contact information
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

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2019, vol. 17, issue 2, No 6, 189-211

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0438-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0438-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0438-y

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().