Engineering Approaches in Life Science and Health Care | Biomedgrid

Contrary to engineering sciences, where the cost criterion is an issue for engineering in optimization of physical systems; in medical and health systems, usually highly regulated for market access and reimbursement of medical services, researchers are used to combine two criteria, cost and effectiveness or cost and efficacy. The field is usually called outcome research, and it relies nearly exclusively on a specific industry called outcome research firms, mainly recruiting consultants from the life science industry firms or researchers trained in economic evaluation techniques (especially pharmacoeconomics). In the US however, important political circles have rejected these double criteria especially in the Senate to keep technological trajectories and research and innovation investments close to the production efficiency curve (Philipson et al. es, xx) in order, not to be too disruptive. The field is Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER), versus what is called in most European regulated markets HTA, where usually both cost and effectiveness criteria are used. This on-going problem of course is debated to keep a good adjustment of supply and demand needs, and the more regulated the health system, the more, normally, local demand needs, and its variations are integrated. However, the current globalization stage of both supplies, but also demand with the implementation of Universal Health Coverage, lead to reconsider this debate since local adjustments of supply and demand, even regional adjustments are not enough. Conventional outcome research is therefore challenged and new methodological approaches are explored, among them, MCDAs and especially relevant to engage multistakeholders in a consensual process over the adjustments of supply and demands.