Category: Community

DEVICE TECHNOLOGIES RELEASES GUIDE TO MEDTECH DIGITAL LANDSCAPE

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Medical distributor Device Technologies is championing this digital transformation, releasing a seven-part Digital Playbook. This provides insight into how changes in the digital landscape can benefit organisations in the Med Tech industry.

The Device Technologies Digital Playbook serves as a blueprint for building meaningful online consumer relationships, transforming user experience and taking a people-centric approach across various areas of business operations.

If you’re wondering how advances in technology apply to your organisation within the healthcare industry, download Device Technologies’ Digital Playbook to see how they approach digital. Be sure to follow them on LinkedIn for the next instalments.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

BACK TO BASICS – HTA EXPLAINED

Posted on | by Team

HTA has been growing in popularity among reimbursement agencies worldwide in the last 20 years. Its application to medical devices has been slower for a range of reasons. Its popularity has a number of drivers including the desire to find an objective basis for funding decisions for health technology.

A cost-effectiveness or a cost-utility evaluation seeks to measure the additional clinical benefit and cost of using a new medical product compared to what is now used for the same condition. In cost-utility analysis, patient quality of life and length of life is combined into a single ‘utility’ measure. This is the analysis most commonly used by the Department of Health and its major committees.

To operate effectively, HTA generally requires two major components: firstly, clinical evidence that can be used to compare products; and secondly: an economic analysis of benefits and costs. It therefore requires research – usually by the sponsor – to gather and present data as well as a systematic process of evaluation.

When assessing whether HTA is being done properly, questions can be asked such as:

  • Is the process fair and transparent?
  • Is the depth and complexity of the process suitable for the expected clinical risk and cost?
  • Are the correct outcomes being evaluated?
  • Is there a reasonable way of dealing with uncertainty given data is never perfect?

Australia was one of the first countries to use HTA to assess reimbursement for pharmaceuticals through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Typical submissions grew from a few dozen pages in the early 1990s to thousands of pages currently.

This was followed by assessment of other medical procedures and technologies through the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) starting in the late 1990s.

The Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) and its subcommittees also assess relative cost and effectiveness for prostheses to go on the Prostheses List where a higher benefit is requested. When a medical device is on the Prostheses List, private health insurers are required to pay for it if they have relevant hospital cover for the procedure.

The Australian Government has a policy of making assessment for reimbursement of medical technology and procedures more uniform. To this end it amalgamated the Department of Health sections responsible for supporting assessment process for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), Medicare Services Schedule (MBS) and the Prostheses List into one Branch – the Office of Health Technology Assessment.

The MedTech industry, through the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) is supportive of the appropriate use of HTA for Prostheses List applications but it needs to be undertaken with care. Medical devices are different from pharmaceuticals in that:

  • They are dependent on operator skill
  • Blinded trials are often not practicable
  • Short life cycles/incremental improvements narrow the evidence window
  • Low volume reduces the quantity of evidence
  • The effect on the patient is usually physical not chemical
  • They may require much more company support to use

PulseLine understand that MTAA is now in a process of Prostheses Reform discussion with the Australian Government and other stakeholders. The correct use of HTA for prostheses is a key part of that discussion. The industry has recommended that a ‘prostheses-specific pathway’ be developed that bolsters the capacity of PLAC to evaluate relative effectiveness and cost of new prostheses without requiring a full MSAC deliberation that is resource-intensive and lengthy.

HTA for medical devices is here to stay. Time will tell if the processes put in place by for the Prostheses List enable patient access to good technology or hinder it.

Back to basics – the Prostheses List and Private Health Insurance

Posted on | by Team

So, what is the Prostheses List?

Put simply, the Prostheses List is a list of medical devices for which insurers are required to pay a benefit when a member has the relevant coverage.

For example, if you had hospital orthopaedic cover and you needed a hip replacement, your health fund would be required to pay the minimum benefit for any artificial hip on the Prostheses List.

The Prostheses List is a crucial contributor to the value of private health insurance, enabling members to receive the best quality health care as determined by their doctor.

The Prostheses List ensures that surgeons can choose the best available prostheses for privately insured patients without the options being restricted by health funds.

There are approximately 11,000 items on the Prostheses List. The List is divided into Parts A, B and C.

Part A covers devices that are used as part of hospital or hospital substitute treatment where a Medicare benefit must be paid to the doctor for the procedure performed. The device must be surgically implanted in the body or enable another device to be implanted or allow an implant to continue to function after surgery.

Devices on Part A also must be approved for use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and assessed for effectiveness and cost against other products by the Prostheses List Advisory Committee before they can be listed.

Part A is divided into 13 major categories according to the broad conditions they address, and is further divided into sub-categories, groups and sub-groups. Each prosthesis has its own billing code with a benefit that must be paid for the device.

Part B covers products that are derived from human tissue for treatment of a condition. Part C covers specific groups of medical devices which don’t meet the criteria of Part A but which the Minister for Health considers suitable for benefit payments by private health insurers.

Contrary to popular belief, external prostheses, such as artificial limbs, or prostheses used for cosmetic rather than reconstructive purposes, are not eligible for reimbursement according to Prostheses List criteria.

Despite the cost of private health insurance being a top level concern for many Australians, the existence of the Prostheses List and the major contribution that it makes to the value of private health insurance is largely unknown.

Insurers caught out fudging facts again

Posted on | by Team

Mr Koce used data for 2016-1­­7 from the Private Hospital Data Bureau and the National Hospital Cost Data Collection published by Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) in an attempt to compare prices for prostheses in the public and private sector. The information on costs for both these data sets is based on analysis of Australian Refined – Diagnosis Related Groups (AR-DRGs). One dataset is for private hospitals and one is for public hospitals and each are compiled by different agencies.

The 2016-17 data does not fully reflect the cuts imposed on prostheses across four main categories in February 2017, and also precedes the cuts implemented as part of the MTAA-Government Agreement signed in October 2017.

The latter cuts are estimated to be worth $1.1 billion over the life of the Agreement and resulted in the lowest premium increase in 19 years in 2019. This is even before a further round of Prostheses List benefit reductions under the Agreement, which will take place in February 2020. MTAA estimates that the February 2017 and Agreement cuts have delivered $450 million in savings already in the 2017-18 premium years, higher than forecast under the Agreement.

It is, therefore, inappropriate and completely disingenuous for Mr Koce to quote three-year-old statistics to make his case.

Furthermore, DRGs are not an appropriate tool to compare prostheses costs. DRGs are used to determine hospital funding in Australia. A DRG will not explain which prostheses was the best for the patient, including whether a more expensive one makes more sense based on the many factors that could impact treatment under that DRG. They describe averages, not specifics, and will not take into account legitimate differences in volume mix between prostheses use between public and private patients.

The numbers floated by Mr Koce are similar to those used time and again by the PHI industry in their attempts to get the device industry to temporarily rescue it from difficulties. MTAA has demonstrated that they are not correct, and by the time the last cuts under the Agreement are implemented in February 2020, there will be very little continuing justification for the comparison.

Private health insurers should rather pay heed to APRA’s recent warnings that “often [their] strategies are vague, fail to address the material risk or rely heavily on actions by others”, that “waiting for a third party to ‘serve-up’ a solution is not a defensible strategy” and that “APRA would expect that better prepared insurers are taking actions to improve the value of services for members”.

Insurers must focus on providing value – access to a comprehensive range of life-saving and life-changing medical devices, with generally no out-of-pocket costs for those devices, is a key contributor to the value proposition of private health.

RECORD BREAKING $26.7 BILLION HEALTH BUDGET

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

What to know:

The Government’s health investment includes a $2.7 billion dollar spend on top of $24 billion in recurrent spending over the coming year – taking the total 2019-20 health budget to $26.7 billion.

The recurrent funding investment will focus on families with additional funding to provide an extra 8,000 paediatric operations and 10,000 cataract surgeries, over four years.

What Minister Hazzard had to say:

“This record Budget will see the first stage of an unprecedented boost to the frontline workforce with an extra 8,300 staff over the next four years under a $2.8 billion commitment – 45 per cent to staff to go to the regions.

“This record Budget will ensure patients, their families and those in regional communities already doing it tough in drought-affected areas continue to get timely, world-class care, no matter where they live.”

The health highlights:

  • $2.8 billion to recruit a total of 8,300 frontline health staff over four years;
  • $10.1 billion over four years to invest in NSW’s health infrastructure to continue current works and commence upgrading and building a further 29 hospital and health facility projects, as well as ensure compliance with new leasing standards;
  • $70 million over four years to provide 35 new free mobile dental clinics allowing access to dental checks and basic dental care for up to 136,000 primary school children in Western Sydney, Mid North Coast and the Central Coast each year;
  • $42 million over four years to provide women with greater choice around IVF services and a partnership with the University of NSW for the first state-wide fertility preservation service for young cancer patients at The Royal Hospital for Women;
  • $76 million over four years to boost elective surgery, focusing on children and cataract patients, with delivery of an additional 8,000 paediatric operations and 10,000 cataract surgeries in addition to the investment in frontline staff;
  • $27.1 million to employ 221 paramedics and call centre staff (second tranche of record 750 workforce announced last year) to improve response times, reduce paramedic fatigue and support safety;
  • $23.5 million for mental health to expand the capacity of Lifeline and Kids Helpline over four years;
  • $45 million over four years in palliative care for 100 palliative care nurses, Aboriginal health workers, digital health solutions and the refurbishment of existing facilities. This is in addition to a $100 million package for palliative care that was announced as part of the 2017-18 Budget; and
  • In 2019-20, the Government will invest $2.9 billion in the Health capital program, which includes $148 million from the Ministry of Health’s recurrent expense budget and $78 million for lease acquisitions.

Health infrastructure investment:

One of the largest health projects in NSW is on track to deliver world-class care to local communities for decades to come. This includes a $2.7 billion spend on health infrastructure in 2019-20, up 27 per cent on last year.

The record $2.7 billion health infrastructure investment in 2019-20 will enable the following works:

  • Commencement of new works John Hunter Hospital ($780 million), the Children’s Hospital at Westmead ($619 million) and Tumut Hospital ($50 million);
  • Continuing works at Griffith Hospital, Goulburn Hospital, Hornsby Hospital and Mona Vale Hospital;
  • New hospital car parks at Liverpool, Shellharbour and Wagga Wagga; and
  • Planning for major projects including Sutherland Hospital, Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network at Randwick and the Comprehensive Children’s Cancer Centre, and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

BioMedTech Horizons Program Now Open!

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]MTPConnect has opened a call for Expressions of Interest to identify and select a number of biological and medical technology innovation initiatives that address one of the following four priority therapeutic areas:

  1. Cardiovascular;
  2. Orthopaedics;
  3. Emergency medicine/trauma; or
  4. Ophthalmology.

Up to $1 million of funding is offered for individual projects over a two-year period.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_btn title=”Click Here To Apply” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fmtpconnect.smartygrants.com.au%2FBMTH20||target:%20_blank|”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_btn title=”View the program guidelines” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtpconnect.org.au%2Fimages%2FBMTH%25202.0%2520Guidelines.pdf||target:%20_blank|”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]The BioMedTech Horizons Program was one of the commitments delivered as part of the Medical Technology Association of Australia’s (MTAA) 2017 Agreement with the Commonwealth to promote the sustainability of privately insured health care through rebalancing the costs of medical devices to privately insured patients.

This funding is being delivered via the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), and administered by MTPConnect, the Medical Technology and Pharmaceutical Industry Growth Centre.

Investments from the program will be focused on funding proof-of-concept to commercial development of biomedical and medical technologies (biomedtech).[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Shaking up value-based health care: how and why it can work in Australia

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In launching its Australian Centre for Value-Based Health Care and two issues briefs which explore definitions and funding options, the AHHA highlights work being undertaken by its members and partners as they seek to maximise value in health care and build on work being led by Commonwealth, state and territory governments to move the focus in health policy from volume to value.

Health systems around the world have been exploring how to move the focus of their activities from delivering volume to delivering value. In doing so, they are trying to re-orient health service delivery to provide improved patient outcomes, often while reducing the overall cost of delivery.

To lay the foundation for what value-based health care means in Australia, the Centre’s first paper considers Australia’s alignment with a value-based approach and identifies important enablers that must be part of a coordinated national strategy.

To enable value-based health care through public policy in Australia, Value based health care: setting the scene for Australia by AHHA Policy Director Kylie Woolcock recommends a national, cross-sector strategy for value-based health care in Australia supported by: access to relevant and up-to-date data; evidence for value-based health care in the Australian context; a health workforce strategy supporting models of care that embrace a value-based approach; and funding systems that incentivise value.

Team-based care models with professionals working at the top of their licence may offer more effective, timelier and better value care than traditional care systems.

Funding arrangements need to move away from a reliance on traditional fee-for-service models, which can entrench fragmented care. Rewards and funding should be re-oriented to what matters to patients, namely health outcomes and ongoing effective management of chronic conditions.

Re-orienting funding from volume to value in public dental health services by Dental Health Services Victoria’s Dr Shalika Hegde outlines how they became the first organisation in Australia to implement a patient-centric, and outcomes and prevention focused value-based health care model in the public dental sector using existing funding.

“Dr Hegde argues for strong national leadership and the cooperation of all jurisdictions to implement a national public dental funding system focused on value and outcomes—which will benefit all parties,” said Ms Verhoeven,

“This is not about saving money—this is about achieving better outcomes that matter to patients and getting better value for every public dollar spent.

“We invite innovative organisations from around Australia to partner with us to go on the value-based health care journey.”

Visit the Australian Centre for Value-Based Health Care at www.valuebasedcareaustralia.com.au. To find out more about the AHHA, visit www.ahha.asn.au.

The Australian Centre for Value-Based Health Care is the nexus of the value-based health care movement in Australia, bringing together educational and training opportunities, quality research and best practice case studies into a hub where those interested in value-based health care can easily find resources.[/vc_column_text][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”1850″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]You may also be interested in reading:

VALUE-BASED HEALTHCARE IN AUSTRALIA
by Andrew Wiltshire

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MedTech’s Got Talent StartUp Event 2019 Sydney

Posted on | by Staff Writer

Facts and figures:

When – 24 June 2019 8:30 am, 1:30 pm AEST

Where – Ernst & Young, Sydney, 200 George St, Sydney, NSW 2000

How Much – $25

The details:

The day will include, presentations and discussions with industry experts, where attendees can learn about key areas such as intellectual property, market positioning, capital raising and the art of pitching.

The bootcamp will also help to advise on how to succeed in the MedTech’s Got Talent competition – Australia’s largest medical and health technology entrepreneurship challenge – and a  leading market-driven, industry-led Accelerator program for MedTech and HealthTech startups.

Wrapping up at 12.30pm, the bootcamp will be followed by lunch and a chance to network with other emerging MedTech and HealthTech entrepreneurs and industry experts.

To purchase tickets go to – www.eventbrite.com.au/e/medtechs-got-talent-startup-bootcamp-2019-sydney-tickets-62298458366

New Zealand MedTech To Be Impacted

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Government is introducing a new regulatory scheme for therapeutic products, and in addition, PHARMAC, the medicines purchasing agency, is extending its authority over medical devices in public (District Health Board – DHB) hospitals.

A draft bill setting out the framework for the new regulatory regime was released for consultation earlier in the year.  The purpose of the proposed Bill is to:

1. a) ensure acceptable safety, quality, and efficacy or performance of therapeutic products across their lifecycle; and

(b) regulate the manufacture, import, promotion, supply, and administration or use of therapeutic products.

Following the consultation process, a Bill is proposed for introduction into Parliament by the end of 2019 and scheduled for commencement from late 2022.

In addition to these regulatory changes, funding arrangements for devices are also changing -presenting a number of challenges to those operating in New Zealand.

PHARMAC was created in 1993 to manage government spending on medicines. Whilst there is a lot of debate around its impact on the health budget and patient access to innovative medicines, it is undeniable that it has delivered lower spending growth on pharmaceuticals.

New Zealand now has one of the lowest public spends on pharmaceuticals in the OECD. But New Zealand also ranked lowest in the OECD for the proportion of new medicines that are subsidised (2010-2015) – 12% compared with 48% for Australia, and 58% for the OECD on average.  And in 2013, generics accounted for more than three-quarters of the volume of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand.

Since 2012, PHARMAC has been working on the procurement of hospital medical devices including introducing the first national contracts for devices in 2014 and implementing the first market share procurement for wound care in 2017/18.  They now have $200 million under contract.

PHARMAC wants to commence the next phase of its work on medical devices as early as 2020. This would see PHARMAC deciding which medical devices are funded and also making decisions about introducing new technology that DHB hospitals can use.

The conflation of these two changes have significant implications for the 240 companies operating in the medical devices sector in New Zealand. The PHARMAC approach will potentially erode patient and clinician choice, training and education for medical professionals, long term competition and viability of the sector, timely access to innovative therapies, value in healthcare and overall patient outcomes.

The PHARMAC proposal is open for consultation until 28 June 2019.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MTAA WELCOMES RE-APPOINTMENT OF GREG HUNT AS HEALTH MINISTER

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]MTAA wrote to Minister Hunt before the election seeking a commitment to the medical devices industry to continue to honour the Agreement signed with the sector in 2017, and we were pleased that he responded with an assurance that the Agreement would be honoured.

The Agreement will save private health insurers $1.1 billion in payments for medical devices over the next four years and helped deliver the lowest private health premium increase in 18 years in December 2018.

A key part of the Agreement was the undertaking by Government to accelerate the process of listing non-implantable medical devices on the Prostheses List, to allow more Australians access to cutting edge technology.

The listing of catheter ablation technology on the Prostheses List was a significant step towards allowing privately insured patients greater access to life-saving non-implantable technology.

We look forward to continuing our productive relationship with Minister Hunt as we work together to ensure that Australians have access to the best possible medical technology in order to help them live longer and healthier lives.

We also welcome the re-appointment of the Hon Karen Andrews to the role of Industry, Science and Technology.[/vc_column_text][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”1585″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ian Burgess is the CEO of the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]