Background: Rapid on site evaluation (ROSE) allows immediate processing and interpretation of the aspirate in the procedural suite. It improves diagnostic yield and lowers patient care costs. There are limited data on its cost-effectiveness with endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS).

Methods: We developed an economic model with two arms, no ROSE (our current practice) and simulated ROSE. To simulate ROSE, a cytopathologist retrospectively identified the first diagnostic slide in each case. Using a decision analytic modeling technique under a hospital diagnostic unit perspective, the benefits of simulated ROSE were estimated as cost-savings. The model input was estimated from actual data, consulting experts, and the literature. The benefits were estimated as cost savings per patient and for the province of Alberta per year. Due to differences in the procedure, sarcoidosis and cancer patients were analyzed separately. The costs are shown in 2012 Canadian dollars, CAD.

Results: In our model without ROSE, the procedure cost/patient was CAD 646.00(USD 523.32) for cancer and CAD 1,170.00 (USD 947.73) for sarcoidosis. With simulated ROSE cost savings of CAD 63.00(37.00 to 89.00) [USD 51.04(29.97 to 72.10)], CAD 544.00(490.00 to 598.00) [USD 440.65(397.05 to 484.44)] for cancer and sarcoidosis, respectively. Extrapolating this to provincial data, our model estimates that EBUS with ROSE would lead to savings of CAD 50,000.00(30,000 to 71,000) [USD 40,501.24 (24,300.75 to 57,531.34)] for cancer and CAD 109,000.00 (87,000 to 130,000) [USD 88,337.07 (70,546.45 to 105,313.04) for sarcoidosis.

Conclusion: The use of ROSE with EBUS is cost saving. The projected savings were CAD 50,000.00 (USD 40,501.24) and CAD 109,000.00(USD 88,337.07) in cancer and sarcoidosis, respectively, for the province of Alberta, Canada.

Objectives: International guidelines recommend annual mammography after early breast cancer, but there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support this schedule over any other. Given that not all women have the same risk of recurrence, it is possible that, by defining different risk profiles, we could tailor mammographic schedules that are more effective and efficient.

Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed to describe the progression of early breast cancer after completion of primary treatment. Retrospective data for 1,100 postmenopausal women diagnosed with early breast cancer in South Australia from 2000 to 2008 were used to calibrate the model. Women were divided into four prognostic subgroups based on the Nottingham Prognostic Index of their primary tumor. For each subgroup, we compared the cost-effectiveness of three different mammographic schedules for two different age groups.

Results: Annual mammographic follow-up was not cost-effective for most postmenopausal women. Two yearly mammography was cost-effective for all women with excellent prognosis tumors; and for women with good prognosis tumors if high compliance rates can be achieved. Annual mammography for 5 years and 2 yearly surveillance thereafter (a mixed schedule) may be cost-effective for 50- to 69-year-old women with moderate prognosis tumors, and for women aged 70–79 years with poor prognosis tumors. For younger women with poor prognosis tumors, annual mammography is potentially cost-effective.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that mammographic follow-up could be tailored according to risk of recurrence. If validated with larger datasets, this could potentially set the stage for personalized mammographic follow-up after breast cancer.

Objectives: Although the clinical benefits of endovenous thermal ablation are widely recognized, few studies have evaluated the health economic implications of different treatments. This study compares 6-month clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the setting of a randomized clinical trial.

Methods: Patients with symptomatic primary varicose veins were randomized to EVLA or RFA and followed up for 6 months to evaluate clinical improvements, health related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness.

Results: A total of 131 patients were randomized, of which 110 attended 6-month follow-up (EVLA n = 54; RFA n = 56). Improvements in quality of life (AVVQ and SF-12v2) and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) achieved at 6 weeks were maintained at 6 months, with no significant difference detected between treatment groups. There were no differences in treatment failure rates. There were small differences in favor of EVLA in terms of costs and 6-month HRQOL but these were not statistically significant. However, RFA is associated with less pain at up to 10 days.

Conclusions: EVLA and RFA result in comparable and significant gains in quality of life and clinical improvements at 6 months, compared with baseline values. EVLA is more likely to be cost-effective than RFA but absolute differences in costs and HRQOL are small.

Objectives: Medical technology is a large and expanding industry. Introducing new medical devices is important but several challenges exist in implementing the optimal method of evaluation. Both objective and subjective measures can be used for evaluation. The former is the mainstay of evaluation, yet subjective assessment is often the basis for the introduction of new medical technology. The aim of this study was to determine the interaction and concordance between objective and subjective assessment of new medical technology.

Methods: This study used both objective performance measures and subjective user perceptions in the evaluation of a new medical device designed to improve the accuracy of gravity-assisted delivery of intravenous fluids, compared with the current, widely used “roller-clamp” device. The concordance of objective and subjective assessments was evaluated using comparative analysis.

Results: Objective assessment of the accuracy of intravenous fluid delivery revealed no difference between the two devices (p = .636). Subjective assessment revealed that the new device was perceived to be significantly more accurate (p = .001). This lack of concordance can be partially explained by both device and demand characteristics.

Conclusions: This case study reveals a significant discordance between the objective and subjective assessments. It provides some explanation for why new medical devices are adopted without objective evidence of benefit. This phenomenon has been termed “persuasive design” and its influence should be controlled for in the evaluation, purchase and introduction of new medical devices. This should help reduce the risk and associated cost of premature introduction.

Objectives: Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine Applications (MAST) is a health technology assessment (HTA) inspired framework for assessing the effectiveness and contribution to quality of telemedicine applications based on rigorous, scientific data. This study reports from a study of how it was used and perceived in twenty-one pilots of the European project RENEWING HEALTH (RH). The objectives of RH were to implement large-scale, real-life test beds for the validation and subsequent evaluation of innovative patient-centered telemedicine services. The study is a contribution to the appraisal of HTA methods.

Methods: A questionnaire was administered for project leaders of the pilots. It included questions about use and usefulness of MAST for (i) preceding considerations, (ii) evaluation of outcomes within seven domains, and (iii) considerations of transferability. Free text spaces allowed for proposals of improvement. The responses covered all pilots. A quantitative summary of use and a qualitative analysis of usefulness were performed.

Results: MAST was used and considered useful for pilot evaluations. Challenges included problems to scientifically determine alternative service options and outcome within the seven domains. Proposals for improvement included process studies and adding domains of technological usability, responsible innovation, health literacy, behavior change, caregiver perspectives and motivational issues of professionals.

Conclusions: MAST was used according to its structure. Its usefulness in patient centered pilots can be improved by adding new stakeholder groups. Interdependencies between scientific rigor, resources and timeliness should be addressed. Operational options for improvements include process studies, literature reviews and sequential mini-HTAs for identification of areas for more elaborate investigations.

In their article “Assessment of MAST in European Patient-Centered Telemedicine Pilots” published in this journal (1), Anne Granstrøm Ekeland and Astrid Grøttland describe the results from a questionnaire study of how MAST (Model for Assessment of Telemedicine) (2) was used and perceived by the project managers in twenty-one studies of telemedicine in the European project RENEWING HEALTH.

Objectives: Equity is one of the founding principles in most healthcare systems. Financial constraints entail an increased risk of exacerbating inequities and a greater need for evidence-based decisions. It is, therefore, both important and timely to enquire how equity can be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) practice. We aimed to explore related practices from a broad range of HTA agencies, identify exemplary approaches and common concerns, and offer insights for future considerations.

Methods: HTA agencies for which both methodological guides and HTA reports were publicly available were selected from an initial comprehensive pool. Information was extracted on issues ranging from a general commitment to fairness to specific measures targeting both methodological and process-related elements.

Results: Methodological documents and ninety-eight reports from nineteen agencies were analyzed. Our findings indicate that equity was not a standard consideration in HTA report production. The nature of specific approaches and the amount of resources invested into including an equity perspective varied considerably. Specific measures (e.g., appropriate information sources, analytical tools, and schemes) were mentioned by almost half of the agencies analyzed. Albeit sporadic, both horizontal and vertical equity considerations were identified in included HTA reports.

Conclusions: While varying legal contexts and institutional principles can lead to different interpretations of equity at the decision point, a combination of methodological and process-related practices could contribute to more equity-sensitive evaluations, especially in conjunction with enhanced dissemination of existing methodological tools. Networking initiatives on behalf of existing collaborating platforms could play an important role in this direction.

Objectives: The suitability of general HTA methodology for medical devices is gaining interest as a topic of scientific discourse. Given the broad range of medical devices, there might be differences between groups of devices that impact both the necessity and the methods of their assessment. Our aim is to develop a taxonomy that provides researchers and policy makers with an orientation tool on how to approach the assessment of different types of medical devices.

Methods: Several classifications for medical devices based on varying rationales for different regulatory and reporting purposes were analyzed in detail to develop a comprehensive taxonomic model.

Results: The taxonomy is based on relevant aspects of existing classification schemes incorporating elements of risk and functionality. Its 9 × 6 matrix distinguishes between the diagnostic or therapeutic nature of devices and considers whether the medical device is directly used by patients, constitutes part of a specific procedure, or can be used for a variety of procedures. We considered the relevance of different device categories in regard to HTA to be considerably variable, ranging from high to low.

Conclusions: Existing medical device classifications cannot be used for HTA as they are based on different underlying logics. The developed taxonomy combines different device classification schemes used for different purposes. It aims at providing decision makers with a tool enabling them to consider device characteristics in detail across more than one dimension. The placement of device groups in the matrix can provide decision support on the necessity of conducting a full HTA.

Objectives: The headroom approach to medical device development relies on the estimation of a value-based price ceiling at different stages of the development cycle. Such price-ceilings delineate the commercial opportunities for new products in many healthcare systems. We apply a simple model to obtain critical business information as the product proceeds along a development pathway, and indicate some future directions for the development of the approach.

Methods: Health economic modelling in the supply-side development cycle for new products.

Results: The headroom can be used: initially as a ‘reality check’ on the viability of the device in the healthcare market; to support product development decisions using a real options approach; and to contribute to a pricing policy which respects uncertainties in the reimbursement outlook.

Conclusions: The headroom provides a unifying thread for business decisions along the development cycle for a new product. Over the course of the cycle attitudes to uncertainty will evolve, based on the timing and manner in which new information accrues. Within this framework the developmental value of new information can justify the costs of clinical trials and other evidence-gathering activities. Headroom can function as a simple shared tool to parties in commercial negotiations around individual products or groups of products. The development of similar approaches in other contexts holds promise for more rational planning of service provision.

Background: Despite ongoing policy debate, little is known about the growth in orthopedic surgery practices with onsite magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) capacity, or practice characteristics associated with the acquisition of in-office MRI equipment.

Methods: In July 2012, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) member practices received a web-based survey requesting general information about their practice, such as number practice providers authorized to order MRIs, the type of onsite MRI capacity present (if any), and the date of acquisition for the MRI equipment. Survey responses were augmented with county-level measures of practice area characteristics as of the year of first onsite MRI acquisition (or 2012 for practices without an onsite MRI).

Results: The survey obtained usable responses from 740 orthopedic practices, which were geographically representative of AAOS member practices. Forty percent (298) reported onsite MRI capacity. Onsite MRI acquisition occurred at a steady pace over 2000–2012, with no dramatic increase occurring in any particular year over that period. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that practice size (number of providers) was the most important factor affecting the likelihood of onsite MRI acquisition. There was no association between onsite MRI acquisition and any of the county-level practice area characteristics included in the analysis.

Conclusions: Orthopedic practices acquiring onsite MRI equipment on average are much larger than practices without onsite MRI capacity. Larger practices may be more likely to attain the economies of scale necessary to absorb the fixed costs associated with onsite MRI acquisition.

Objectives: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issues National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) for medical interventions expected to have a significant impact on Medicare, the health insurance program for US citizens aged 65 years and older and certain people with disabilities under the age of 65 years. The objective of this study was to evaluate NCDs issued from 1999 to 2013 to identify key trends, and to discuss implications for future CMS policy.

Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center Medicare National Coverage Determination Database to examine characteristics of NCDs from 1999 through 2013. We examined various characteristics of NCDs, including: whether the intervention under review is used for prevention or treatment of disease, the type of intervention considered, evidence limitations cited by CMS, and coverage determination outcome. We evaluated longitudinal trends in categorical and continuous variables in the database, using Cochran-Armitage trend tests and linear regression, respectively.

Results: We found that NCDs increasingly focus on preventive care (p = 0.072), pertain to diagnostic imaging (p = 0.033), and evaluate health education/behavioral therapy interventions (p = 0.051). CMS increasingly cites the lack of relevant outcomes (p = 0.019) and the lack of applicability of study results to the Medicare population (p < 0.001) as evidence limitations. CMS less often restricts coverage to certain population subgroups in NCDs (p < 0.001), but increasingly applies coverage with evidence development policies (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Identified trends reflect broader changes in Medicare as CMS shifts its focus from treatment to prevention of disease, addresses potentially overutilized technologies, and attempts to issue flexible coverage policies.