Implementation of reimbursement decisions is important to payers and manufacturers, however, evidence shows that it is highly variable. An economic framework is available to assess its value that has been successfully applied and which has developed over time to produce a more realistic representation of the real world. The framework incorporates the value of information, technology diffusion, and the interaction between the two, to generate a value of implementation. While potentially complex to apply, simple analyses are possible and qualitative lessons identified from its associated literature. Six lessons are identified which highlight the importance of considering pricing, population size, technology diffusion, evidence generation, and cost-effectiveness. Consideration of these issues would help payers and manufacturers to work together in a combined effort to increase the implementation of new technologies and generate greater value to society.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
World Health Organization. 2015Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. Main Findings. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.
2.
ChidgeyJLengGLaceyT. Implementing NICE guidance. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(10):448–452.
3.
LowsonKJenksMFilbyACarrLCampbellBPowellJ. Examining the implementation of NICE guidance: cross-sectional survey of the use of NICE interventional procedures guidance by NHS Trusts. Implement Sci. 2015;10:93.
4.
SheldonTACullumNDawsonD, et al.What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329(7473):999.
5.
VyawahareBHallasNBrookesMTaylorRSEldabeS. Impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on medical technology uptake: analysis of the uptake of spinal cord stimulation in England 2008-2012. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e004182.
6.
RogersEM. Diffusion of Innovations. 1st ed. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe; 1962.
7.
GrimshawJMThomasREMacLennanG, et al.Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(6):iii–iv, 1–72.
8.
DrummondMSculpherMClaxtonKStoddartGLTorranceGW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
9.
FenwickEClaxtonKSculpherM. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):21–32.
10.
ClaxtonKSculpherMDrummondM. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360(9334):711–715.
11.
FariaRWalkerSWhyteSDixonSPalmerSSculpherM. How to invest in getting cost-effective technologies into practice? A framework for value of implementation analysis applied to novel oral anticoagulants. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(2):148–161.
12.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dabigitran Etexilate for the Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 249. London, United Kingdom: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2012.
13.
WhyteSDixonSFariaR, et al.Estimating the cost-effectiveness of implementation: is sufficient evidence available?Value Health. 2016;19(2):138–144.
14.
MantJDoustJRoalfeA, et al.Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnosis of heart failure, with modelling of implications of different diagnostic strategies in primary care. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(32):201–207.
15.
GrimmSEDixonSStevensJW. Assessing the expected value of research studies in reducing uncertainty and improving implementation dynamics. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(5):523–533.
16.
GrimmSEStevensJWDixonS. Estimating future health technology diffusion using expert beliefs calibrated to an established diffusion model. Value Health. 2018;21(8):944–950.
17.
GrimmSEDixonSStevensJW. When future change matters: modeling future price and diffusion in health technology assessments of medical devices. Value Health. 2016;19(6):720–726.
18.
BrownAMeenanBJYoungTP. Marketing innovation: medical device prices follow the experience curve. J Med Mark. 2007;7(3):203–212.
19.
ChauhanDMasonA. Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines in secondary care—a literature review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2008;33(4):339–348.
20.
ClaxtonKMartinSSoaresM, et al.Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technology Assess. 2015;19(14):501–503.
21.
WoodsBRevillPSculpherMClaxtonK. Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research. Value Health. 2016;19(8):929–935.
22.
GriffithsUKLegoodRPittC. Comparison of economic evaluation methods across low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: what are the differences and why?Health Econ. 2016;25(suppl 1):29–41.
23.
HjelmgrenJBerggrenFAnderssonF. Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4(3):225–250.
24.
WirtzVCribbABarberN. Reimbursement decisions in health policy—extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy. 2005;73(3):330–338.
