Cargando…

Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eckhardt, Helene, Felgner, Susanne, Dreger, Marie, Fuchs, Sabine, Ermann, Hanna, Rödiger, Hendrikje, Rombey, Tanja, Busse, Reinhard, Henschke, Cornelia, Panteli, Dimitra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10546629/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37784100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01047-w
_version_ 1785114896266952704
author Eckhardt, Helene
Felgner, Susanne
Dreger, Marie
Fuchs, Sabine
Ermann, Hanna
Rödiger, Hendrikje
Rombey, Tanja
Busse, Reinhard
Henschke, Cornelia
Panteli, Dimitra
author_facet Eckhardt, Helene
Felgner, Susanne
Dreger, Marie
Fuchs, Sabine
Ermann, Hanna
Rödiger, Hendrikje
Rombey, Tanja
Busse, Reinhard
Henschke, Cornelia
Panteli, Dimitra
author_sort Eckhardt, Helene
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care. METHODS: This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment—databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-01047-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10546629
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105466292023-10-04 Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter? Eckhardt, Helene Felgner, Susanne Dreger, Marie Fuchs, Sabine Ermann, Hanna Rödiger, Hendrikje Rombey, Tanja Busse, Reinhard Henschke, Cornelia Panteli, Dimitra Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care. METHODS: This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment—databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-01047-w. BioMed Central 2023-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10546629/ /pubmed/37784100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01047-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Eckhardt, Helene
Felgner, Susanne
Dreger, Marie
Fuchs, Sabine
Ermann, Hanna
Rödiger, Hendrikje
Rombey, Tanja
Busse, Reinhard
Henschke, Cornelia
Panteli, Dimitra
Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
title Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
title_full Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
title_fullStr Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
title_full_unstemmed Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
title_short Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
title_sort utilization of innovative medical technologies in german inpatient care: does evidence matter?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10546629/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37784100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01047-w
work_keys_str_mv AT eckhardthelene utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT felgnersusanne utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT dregermarie utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT fuchssabine utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT ermannhanna utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT rodigerhendrikje utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT rombeytanja utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT bussereinhard utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT henschkecornelia utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter
AT pantelidimitra utilizationofinnovativemedicaltechnologiesingermaninpatientcaredoesevidencematter