Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Brandes, Alina Schwarzkopf, Larissa and Rogowski, Wolf H. 2016. USING CLAIMS DATA FOR EVIDENCE GENERATION IN MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 32, Issue. 1-2, p. 69.

    Chambers, James D. Chenoweth, Matthew D. Pyo, Junhee Cangelosi, Michael J. and Neumann, Peter J. 2015. CHANGING FACE OF MEDICARE’S NATIONAL COVERAGE DETERMINATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 31, Issue. 05, p. 347.

    Martelli, Nicolas and van den Brink, Hélène 2014. Special funding schemes for innovative medical devices in French hospitals: The pros and cons of two different approaches. Health Policy, Vol. 117, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    Singh, Anupam Marshall, Christopher Chaudhuri, Biswashree Okoli, Chidimma Foley, Anne Person, Sharina D. Bhattacharya, Kanishka and Cave, David R. 2013. Timing of video capsule endoscopy relative to overt obscure GI bleeding: implications from a retrospective study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 77, Issue. 5, p. 761.

    Espín, Jaime Oliva, Juan and Rodríguez-Barrios, José Manuel 2010. Esquemas innovadores de mejora del acceso al mercado de nuevas tecnologías: los acuerdos de riesgo compartido. Gaceta Sanitaria, Vol. 24, Issue. 6, p. 491.

    Patrick, Hannah Gallaugher, Sally Czoski-Murray, Carolyn Wheeler, Robert Chattle, Marc Marlow, Mirella Lyratzopoulos, Georgios and Campbell, Bruce 2010. Usefulness of a short-term register for health technology assessment where the evidence base is poor. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 26, Issue. 01, p. 95.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 25, Issue 3
  • July 2009, pp. 290-296

A successful practical application of Coverage with Evidence Development in Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy Register

  • Sue P. O'Malley (a1), Warwick S. Selby (a2) and Ernest Jordan (a3)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 July 2009

Background: In August 2002, an application for the listing on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) of PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy (formally M2A®) as a diagnostic procedure for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) was made to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). As a result of this application, in May 2004 PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy was approved with interim funding until April 2007. This funding was conditional on the collection of Australian data on the long-term safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of capsule endoscopy.

Methods: A review was conducted of how the data were collected, the methodological difficulties associated with the collection and analysis of the data, and the outcomes of the data.

Results: The PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy Register ran from 2004 to 2007 and amassed data on 4,099 patients forming the largest database on PillCam® in the world. Based on these data, in November 2007, MSAC recommended that full public funding be supported under the current MBS Item Number 11820 as capsule endoscopy is as safe as and more effective than comparable diagnostic tests. It is the preferred choice of patients and has the potential to reduce the number and cost of previous investigations.

Conclusions: This form of CED proved to be ideally suited to PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy. The PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy Register provided data that made it possible to validate assumptions used in the economic modeling in the assessment carried out for MSAC in response to the application for funding.

Discussion: The use of interim funding requires both risk and cost sharing among the key players: industry, government, the medical profession, and the hospitals. Although the characteristics of PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy proved to be suited to data collection, this may not be the case with other emerging health technologies. If interim funding coupled with data collection is to become an effective mechanism for bridging the evidence gap, work needs to be carried out by health technology assessment agencies to provide guidance on the design of registers so that they cater for the unique characteristics of individual procedures.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.D Gilbert , S O'Malley , W Selby . Are repeat upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy necessary within six months of capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:18061809.

4.SP O'Malley . The Australian experiment: The use of evidence based medicine for the reimbursement of surgical and diagnostic procedures (1998–2004). Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2006;3:3.

5.SD Reed , AM Shea , KA Schulman . Economic implications of potential changes to regulatory and reimbursement policies for medical devices. J Gen Intern Med. 2007:23 (Suppl 1):5056.

7.SR Tunis , DB Stryer , CM Clancy . Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:16241632.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

O'Malley Supplementary Material
Tables & Graphs.doc

 Unknown (37 KB)
37 KB