INTRODUCTION: The regulatory area is one that restricts human behaviour and opportunities, but it also allows the prevention of loss of property, health, or even life in various fields. Regulations provide the market with public confidence, which is extremely important in the field of innovative medical devices. The aim of this article is to analyse critical factors and economic methods for regulatory impact assessment in the medical device industry, to focus on the finances, processes, or innovation activity of organisations operating in the medical device sector. METHODS: The paper consists of a scoping review according to the PRISMA methodology of the available literature in Web of Science and Scopus database, whereby combing the keywords "regulation" AND "innovation" AND "medical device" AND "economic impact," we obtained a set of 156 results in the form of English-written articles. The output was then limited to the period between 2011 and 2020. Finally, 23 papers were used based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The resulting challenges of the identified problems in particular are the amount of high-quality data available at an appropriate cost and the availability of a flexible notified body. There are also challenges specific to the situation, such as demands on the safety of medical devices for children. From a public expectations point of view, there is a continuing need to maintain the urgency of the balance between available innovation and safety. DISCUSSION: As for the methods of economic assessment in general, or methods for assessing the economic impact of regulations in particular, cost-effectiveness analysis is the most commonly used method for research and development, while internal rate of return is frequently used for the producers, and budget impact analysis is typically used for healthcare service providers. A non-financial indicator that is often discussed is the time demands associated with meeting compliance requirements. The time-to-market indicator is also often mentioned. Economic and financial topics are not discussed in depth, as the reviewed articles simply mention the generally high costs attendant on complying with regulations and obtaining certificates.

Department of Economics Faculty of Informatics and Management University of Hradec Králové Hradec Králové Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

OECD. Measuring regulatory performance. OECD; September 21, 2020. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/measuring-regulatory-performance.htm. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Faulkner A. Tissue engineered technologies: regulatory pharmaceuticalization in the European Union. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res. 2012;25(4):389–408. doi:10.1080/13511610.2012.723333 DOI

FDA. Advancing regulatory science. U.S. Food & Drug Administration; October 4, 2019. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/advancing-regulatory-science. Accessed January 6, 2022.

ITU. Using regulatory impact analysis to improve decision making in the ICT sector. International Telecommunication Union; Union internationale des télécommunications; 2014. Available from: http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/pub/80cc9798-en. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Maresova P, Hajek L, Krejcar O, Storek M, Kuca K. New regulations on medical devices in Europe: are they an opportunity for growth? Adm Sci. 2020;10(1):16. doi:10.3390/admsci10010016 DOI

Rothwell R, Zegveld WC. Reindustrialization and Technology. Sharpe; 1985.

Bonnin Roca J, O’Sullivan E. The role of regulators in mitigating uncertainty within the valley of death. Technovation. 2020:102157. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102157 DOI

Johnson JA. FDA regulation of medical devices. In: Medical Devices & the FDA: Regulation, User Fees & Tort Claims. Nova Science; Gazelle [distributor]; 2013:1–38.

Ganz RA. The impact of health care reform on innovation and new technology. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2012;22(1):109–120. doi:10.1016/j.giec.2011.08.006 PubMed DOI

Pane J, Coloma PM, Verhamme KMC, Sturkenboom MCJM, Rebollo I. Evaluating the safety profile of non-active implantable medical devices compared with medicines. Drug Saf. 2017;40(1):37–47. doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0474-1 PubMed DOI PMC

Maresova P, Rezny L, Peter L, Hajek L, Lefley F. Do regulatory changes seriously affect the medical devices industry? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Front Public Health. 2021;9:666453. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.666453 PubMed DOI PMC

Medical devices in the EU: a global leader in safety, availability and innovation; November, 2015. Available from: https://www.medtecheurope.org/news-and-events/default/medical-devices-in-the-eu-a-global-leader-in-safety-availability-and-innovation/. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Wisła R, Sierotowicz T. Innovation in the pharmaceutical and medical technologies industries of Poland. WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization; 2018. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_econstat_wp_45.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Yamaue H. Innovation of Diagnosis and Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer. SPRINGER Verlag; 2017.

MedTech Europe. MedTech Europe, from diagnosis to cure – homepage; 2020. Available from: https://www.medtecheurope.org/. Accessed January 1, 2020.

Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, Amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and Repealing council directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC; 2017. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0745. Accessed January 1, 2020.

EUnetHTA. HTA Core Model®. EUnetHTA; 2021. https://www.eunethta.eu/hta-core-model/. Accessed October 27, 2021.

Burlea-Schiopoiu A, Ferhati K. The managerial implications of the key performance indicators in healthcare sector: a cluster analysis. Healthcare. 2020;9(1):19. doi:10.3390/healthcare9010019 PubMed DOI PMC

Brockis E, Marsden G, Cole A, Devlin N. A review of NICE methods across health technology assessment programmes: differences, justifications and implications. Office of Health Economics Research; 2016. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/NICE%20HTA%20methods%20RP%20FINAL_0.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Echchakoui S. Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019. J Mark Anal. 2020;8(3):165–184. doi:10.1057/s41270-020-00081-9 DOI

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMed DOI PMC

PRISMA. PRISMA flow diagram; 2021. Available from: http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Guerra-Bretaña RM, Flórez-Rendón AL. Impact of regulations on innovation in the field of medical devices. Res Biomed Eng. 2018;34(4):356–367. doi:10.1590/2446-4740.180054 DOI

Gruska M, Aigner G, Altenberger J, et al. Recommendations on the utilization of telemedicine in cardiology. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2020;132(23–24):782–800. doi:10.1007/s00508-020-01762-2 PubMed DOI

Wright SJ, Paulden M, Payne K. Implementing interventions with varying marginal cost-effectiveness: an application in precision medicine. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(7):924–938. doi:10.1177/0272989X20954391 PubMed DOI PMC

Heidt B, Siqueira W, Eersels K, et al. Point of care diagnostics in resource-limited settings: a review of the present and future of PoC in its most needed environment. Biosensors. 2020;10(10):133. doi:10.3390/bios10100133 PubMed DOI PMC

Plun-Favreau J, Immonen-Charalambous K, Steuten L, et al. Enabling equal access to molecular diagnostics: What are the implications for policy and health technology assessment? Public Health Genomics. 2016;19(3):144–152. doi:10.1159/000446532 PubMed DOI

Gelijns AC, Russo MJ, Hong KN, Brown LD, Ascheim DD, Moskowitz AJ. Dynamics of device innovation: implications for assessing value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):365–373. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000561 PubMed DOI

Miesler T, Wimschneider C, Brem A, Meinel L. Frugal innovation for point-of-care diagnostics controlling outbreaks and epidemics. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2020;6(5):2709–2725. doi:10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b01712 PubMed DOI

Markiewicz K, Van Til J, IJzerman M. Early assessment of medical devices in development for company decision making: an exploration of best practices. J Commer Biotechnol. 2017;23(2). doi:10.5912/jcb780 DOI

Blüher M, Saunders SJ, Mittard V, Torrejon Torres R, Davis JA, Saunders R. Critical review of European health-economic guidelines for the health technology assessment of medical devices. Front Med. 2019;6:278. doi:10.3389/fmed.2019.00278 PubMed DOI PMC

Scannell P, Cormican K. Spinning out of control? How academic spinoff formation overlooks medical device regulations. J Technol Manag Innov. 2019;14(3):82–92. doi:10.4067/S0718-27242019000300082 DOI

Jogova M, Shaw J, Jamieson T. The regulatory challenge of mobile health: lessons for Canada. Healthc Policy Polit Santé. 2019;14(3):19–28. doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25795 PubMed DOI PMC

Vallespin B, Cornet J, Kotzeva A. Ensuring evidence-based safe and effective mHealth applications. In: Evidence-Based Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press; 2016:248–261. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-635-4-248 PubMed DOI

Singh MD, Russ J, Terzidis O. The impact of the Obamacare excise tax on innovation and entrepreneurship early empirical findings. Int J Innov Sci. 2015;7(2):75–90. doi:10.1260/1757-2223.7.2.75 DOI

Bolka EM. The medical device excise tax: an unfair burden. Indiana Law J. 2014;89(4):1691–1722.

White SK, Walters AN. Assessing risk by analogy: a case study of us medical device risk management policy. Health Risk Soc. 2018;20(7–8):358–378. doi:10.1080/13698575.2018.1554802 DOI

Howard J. Balancing innovation and medical device regulation: the case of modern metal-on-metal hip replacements. Med Devices Evid Res. 2016;9:267–275. doi:10.2147/MDER.S113067 PubMed DOI PMC

Richards N, Hudson I. UK medicines regulation: responding to current challenges: UK medicines regulation: responding to current challenges. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(6):1471–1476. doi:10.1111/bcp.13077 PubMed DOI PMC

Bowsher K, Civillico EF, Coburn J, et al. Brain–computer interface devices for patients with paralysis and amputation: a meeting report. J Neural Eng. 2016;13(2):023001. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/023001 PubMed DOI

De Maria C, Di Pietro L, Díaz Lantada A, et al. Safe innovation: on medical device legislation in Europe and Africa. Health Policy Technol. 2018;7(2):156–165. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.01.012 DOI

Boudard A, Martelli N, Prognon P, Pineau J. Clinical studies of innovative medical devices: what level of evidence for hospital-based health technology assessment?: Innovative medical devices and level of evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(4):697–702. doi:10.1111/jep.12024 PubMed DOI

Sauerland S, Brockhaus AC, Fujita-Rohwerder N, Saad S. Approaches to assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices for application in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014;399(3):279–285. doi:10.1007/s00423-014-1173-y PubMed DOI

Lennox K. Substantially unequivalent: reforming FDA regulation of medical devices. Univ Ill LAW Rev. 2014;2014(4):1363–1400.

Gardner J. A history of deep brain stimulation: technological innovation and the role of clinical assessment tools. Soc Stud Sci. 2013;43(5):707–728. doi:10.1177/0306312713483678 DOI

Altenstetter C. Medical device regulation and nanotechnologies: determining the role of patient safety concerns in policymaking: medical device regulation. Law Policy. 2011;33(2):227–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2010.00337.x DOI

Kale D. Mind the gap: investigating the role of collective action in the evolution of Indian medical device regulation. Technol Soc. 2019;59:101121. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.03.004 DOI

Munos B, Baker PC, Bot BM, et al. Mobile health: the power of wearables, sensors, and apps to transform clinical trials: mobile technology and clinical trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1375(1):3–18. doi:10.1111/nyas.13117 PubMed DOI

Onodera R, Sengoku S. Innovation process of mHealth: an overview of FDA-approved mobile medical applications. Int J Med Inf. 2018;118:65–71. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.07.004 PubMed DOI

Ravizza A, De Maria C, Di Pietro L, Sternini F, Audenino AL, Bignardi C. Comprehensive review on current and future regulatory requirements on wearable sensors in preclinical and clinical testing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:313. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00313 PubMed DOI PMC

Drukker L, Noble JA, Papageorghiou AT. Introduction to artificial intelligence in ultrasound imaging in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56(4):498–505. doi:10.1002/uog.22122 PubMed DOI PMC

Kesavan P, Dy CJ. Impact of health care reform on technology and innovation. Hand Clin. 2020;36(2):255–262. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2020.01.008 PubMed DOI PMC

Ibrahim N, Gillette N, Patel H, Peiris V. Regulatory science, and how device regulation will shape our future. Pediatr Cardiol. 2020;41(3):469–474. doi:10.1007/s00246-020-02296-0 PubMed DOI

Onur I, Söderberg M. The impact of regulatory review time on incremental and radical innovation: evidence from the high-risk medical device market. J Regul Econ. 2020;57(2):134–158. doi:10.1007/s11149-020-09401-4 DOI

Grennan M, Town RJ. Regulating innovation with uncertain quality: information, risk, and access in medical devices. Am Econ Rev. 2020;110(1):120–161. doi:10.1257/aer.20180946 DOI

Letourneur D, Joyce K, Chauvierre C, Bayon Y, Pandit A. Enabling MedTech translation in academia: redefining value proposition with updated regulations. Adv Healthc Mater. 2021;10(1):2001237. doi:10.1002/adhm.202001237 PubMed DOI

Vasiljeva K, Van Duren BH, Pandit H. Changing device regulations in the European Union: impact on research, innovation and clinical practice. Indian J Orthop. 2020;54(2):123–129. doi:10.1007/s43465-019-00013-5 PubMed DOI PMC

Wilkinson B, van Boxtel R. The medical device regulation of the European Union intensifies focus on clinical benefits of devices. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(3):613–617. doi:10.1007/s43441-019-00094-2 PubMed DOI

Dai Z, Ma Y, Li Q. China’s particle therapy equipment market: opportunities outweigh challenges. Front Public Health. 2020;8:602776. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.602776 PubMed DOI PMC

Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland; September 28, 2020. Available from: https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/health-technology-assessment/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health. Accessed January 6, 2022.

Di Pietro L, Botte E, Granati R, et al. Teaching design standards and regulations on medical devices through a collaborative project-based learning approach. Int J Eng Educ. 2019;35(6A):1803–1815.

Adler N, Liebert V. Joint impact of competition, ownership form and economic regulation on airport performance and pricing. Transp Res Part Policy Pract. 2014;64:92–109. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.008 DOI

Erdman AG, Keefe DF, Schiestl R. Grand challenge: applying regulatory science and big data to improve medical device innovation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60(3):700–706. doi:10.1109/TBME.2013.2244600 PubMed DOI

Franco C, Pieri F, Venturini F. Product market regulation and innovation efficiency. J Product Anal. 2016;45(3):299–315. doi:10.1007/s11123-015-0441-3 DOI

Huang Y, Söder L. Evaluation of economic regulation in distribution systems with distributed generation. Energy. 2017;126:192–201. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.019 DOI

Joskow PL, Rose NL. The effects of economic regulation. In: Schmalensee R, Willig R, editors. Handbook of Industrial Organization. 1st ed. Vol. 2, MIT; 1989:1449–1506.

Musshoff O, Hirschauer N. Using business simulation games in regulatory impact analysis – the case of policies aimed at reducing nitrogen leaching. Appl Econ. 2014;46(25):3049–3060. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.920482 DOI

Parker D, Kirkpatrick C. Measuring Regulatory Performance. The Economic Impact of Regulatory Policy: A Literature Review of Quantitative Evidence. OECD; 2012.

Radcliffe JC. Water recycling in Australia – during and after the drought. Environ Sci Water Res Technol. 2015;1(5):554–562. doi:10.1039/C5EW00048C DOI

Simões P, Marques RC. Influence of regulation on the productivity of waste utilities. What can we learn with the Portuguese experience? Waste Manag. 2012;32(6):1266–1275. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.02.004 PubMed DOI

Keyaerts N, Delarue E, Rombauts Y, D’haeseleer W. Impact of unpredictable renewables on gas-balancing design in Europe. Appl Energy. 2014;119:266–277. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.011 DOI

Cossent R, Gómez T, Olmos L. Large-scale integration of renewable and distributed generation of electricity in Spain: current situation and future needs. Energy Policy. 2011;39(12):8078–8087. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.069 DOI

Vidal C, Beuscart R, Chevallier T Contribution of methodologies adapted to clinical trials focusing on high risk medical devices: In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications; 2020:337–343. doi:10.5220/0009374503370343. DOI

Laslett LJ, Alagona P, Clark BA, et al. The worldwide environment of cardiovascular disease: prevalence, diagnosis, therapy, and policy issues. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(25):S1–S49. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.002 PubMed DOI

Dunn J, Runge R, Snyder M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Pers Med. 2018;15(5):429–448. doi:10.2217/pme-2018-0044 PubMed DOI

Becker F, van El CG, Ibarreta D, et al. Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19(S1):S6–S44. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.249 PubMed DOI PMC

Herder M. When everyone is an orphan: against adopting a U.S.-styled orphan drug policy in Canada. Account Res. 2013;20(4):227–269. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.793120 PubMed DOI

Pirnay JP, Vanderkelen A, De Vos D, et al. Business oriented EU human cell and tissue product legislation will adversely impact Member States’ health care systems. Cell Tissue Bank. 2013;14(4):525–560. doi:10.1007/s10561-013-9397-6 PubMed DOI PMC

Hull G, Pasquale F. Toward a critical theory of corporate wellness. BioSocieties. 2018;13(1):190–212. doi:10.1057/s41292-017-0064-1 DOI

Hall PS, Mitchell ED, Smith AF, et al. The future for diagnostic tests of acute kidney injury in critical care: evidence synthesis, care pathway analysis and research prioritisation. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22(32):1–274. doi:10.3310/hta22320 PubMed DOI PMC

Kazzazi F, Pollard C, Tern P, Ayuso-Garcia A, Gillespie J, Thomsen I. Evaluating the impact of Brexit on the pharmaceutical industry. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2017;10(1):32. doi:10.1186/s40545-017-0120-z PubMed DOI PMC

Chan JCN, Lim LL, Wareham NJ, et al. The Lancet Commission on diabetes: using data to transform diabetes care and patient lives. Lancet. 2020;396(10267):2019–2082. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32374-6 PubMed DOI

Dabbous M, Chachoua L, Caban A, Toumi M. Managed entry agreements: policy analysis from the European Perspective. Value Health. 2020;23(4):425–433. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.008 PubMed DOI

Orubu ESF, Ching C, Zaman MH, Wirtz VJ. Tackling the blind spot of poor-quality medicines in Universal Health Coverage. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2020;13(1):40. doi:10.1186/s40545-020-00208-4 PubMed DOI PMC

Impact of Regulatory Changes on Innovations in the Medical Device Industry Comment on "Clinical Decision Support and New Regulatory Frameworks for Medical Devices: Are We Ready for It? - A Viewpoint Paper"