Place of patient-reported outcomes & experiences measurements (PROMS/PREMS) in the assessment and pricing of Health technologies in France.

In the context of health technologies assessment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become assessment criteria that are expected by evaluation agencies along with the other usual clinical criteria. PROMs instruments measure all aspects of patient experience in connection with their health: symptoms, activities of daily living (physical function, sleep, etc.), various aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL), compliance, global impression of change in wellbeing. PROMs are useful both as 1) a primary or secondary efficacy endpoints, and 2) a tolerability criterion to supplement vigilance data reported by clinicians. Measurement of PROMs must be subject to methodological rigor that is identical to that of other assessment criteria measured by an observer. Scales must be validated, suitable for the objective, and where possible specific to a disease. In addition to standard measures of quality of life, PROMs are taken into consideration in the assessments performed by the HAS, even if their impact on the conclusions is difficult to isolate, as assessments are multifactorial and take into account all data available with regard to the medical context. The CEPS will indirectly take into account PROMs in the fixing of the price or tariff only if they have contributed to the award of the ASA/ASMR by the ad hoc committee of the HAS. The working group has formulated three recommendations which aim to further the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures: (1) Better information for all parties involved in a dossier for technology assessment, (2) Systematization of the collection of PROMs for evaluation of health products, (3) Improved quality of dossiers thanks to the use of relevant and validated tools.

Assessment and non-clinical impact of medical devices.

Medical devices (MDs) cover a wide variety of products. They accompany changes in medical practice in step with technology innovations. Innovations in the field of MDs can improve the conditions of use of health technology and/or modify the organisation of care beyond the strict diagnostic or therapeutic benefit for the patients. However, these non purely clinical criteria seem to be only rarely documented or taken into account in the assessment of MDs during reimbursement decisions at national level or for formulary listing by hospitals even though multidimensional models for the assessment of health technologies have been developed that take into account the views of all stakeholders in the healthcare system In this article, after summarising the background concerning the assessment of health technologies in France, a definition of non-clinical criteria for the assessment of MDs is proposed and a decision tree for the assessment of MDs is described. Future lines of approach are proposed as a conclusion.

Scientific evaluation and pricing of medical devices and associated procedures in France.

Medical devices are many and various, ranging from tongue spatulas to implantable or invasive devices and imaging machines; their lifetimes are short, between 18 months and 5 years, due to incessant incremental innovation; and they are operator-dependent: in general, the clinical user performs a fitting procedure (hip implant or pacemaker), a therapeutic procedure using a non-implantable invasive device (arrhythmic site ablation probe, angioplasty balloon, extension spondyloplasty system, etc.) or follow-up of an active implanted device (long-term follow-up of an implanted cardiac defibrillator or of a deep brain stimulator in Parkinson's patients). A round-table held during the XXVIII(th) Giens Workshops meeting focused on the methodology of scientific evaluation of medical devices and the associated procedures with a view to their pricing and financing by the French National Health Insurance system. The working hypothesis was that the available data-set was sufficient for and compatible with scientific evaluation with clinical benefit. Post-registration studies, although contributing to the continuity of assessment, were not dealt with. Moreover, the focus was restricted to devices used in health establishments, where the association between devices and technical medical procedures is optimally representative. An update of the multiple regulatory protocols governing medical devices and procedures is provided. Issues more specifically related to procedures as such, to non-implantable devices and to innovative devices are then dealt with, and the proposals and discussion points raised at the round-table for each of these three areas are presented.