A Landscape Study to Determine the Innovation Mortality Rate in Health Technology Innovations Across the Globe Global Health Innovation Mortality in Health Technology Innovation

Main Article Content

Sambhu Ramesh
Annie Nithyavathani J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7556-4762
Moinudeen Syed https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4642-7627
Kavita Kachroo
Jitendra Kumar Sharma
A. Priyadarshini
Penta Sneha Latha
Sushmita Roy Chowdary

Keywords

Health technology innovation, Regulatory approval, Medical devices, WHO Compendium, BIRAC, Global innovation agencies

Abstract

Introduction : Health technology innovation encompasses many areas, such as medical devices, diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, digital health solutions, telemedicine, health informatics, and more. These innovations aim to enhance healthcare delivery, improve patient outcomes, increase access to services, reduce costs, and advance medical research.


Methodology : We have analyzed health technology innovations reported between January 2011 and December 2022. Regulatory approval for the innovative products was determined based solely on official open-access websites of health agencies, disregarding information from company websites or third-party sources. The search process utilized identified innovation agencies and sources like Primary Health Care (Innovations were thoroughly examined from these sources, focusing on health technologies, and success was gauged through regulatory approval.


Results : The WHO Compendium includes 200 health innovations primarily intended for low-resource settings, with the USA accounting for the highest number, followed by India, the only low- and middle-income country (LMIC) with significant innovations. However, 58% of the listed innovations did not obtain regulatory clearance. Medical devices dominated the listed innovations, while scalable assistive technologies were limited. Global innovation agencies, particularly Grand Challenges, supported many innovations, but the regulatory approval rate remained low. In India, BIRAC supported 92% of the mapped innovations, with a similar trend of low regulatory approval rates.


Conclusion: The study observed the highest number of innovations during 2015-2017, with medical devices being the most prominent category. However, most innovations from both global and domestic agencies were unapproved, raising concerns about regulatory clearance for these health technologies.


Manuscript Highlights: The manuscript presents several important highlights concerning health technology innovation and regulatory approval. It highlights the evaluation of health innovations from 2015 to 2022, focusing on their success rate based on health agency approval. It reveals an uneven distribution of innovations from different countries and emphasizes the need for critical interventions to improve the process. This study emphasizes the significance of innovations in achieving healthcare equity and sustainable development goals.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 428 | PDF Downloads 106

References


1. Flessa S, Huebner C. Innovations in Health Care—A Conceptual Framework. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 24;18(19):10026.
2. Kelly CJ, Young AJ. Promoting innovation in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2017 Jun;4(2):121–5.
3. David Y. Medical Technology - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/medical-technology
4. Amjad A, Kordel P, Fernandes G. A Review on Innovation in Healthcare Sector (Telehealth) through Artificial Intelligence. Sustainability. 2023 Jan;15(8):6655.
5. Herzlinger RE. Why Innovation in Health Care Is So Hard. Harvard Business Review [Internet]. 2006 May 1 [cited 2023 Oct 3]; Available from: https://hbr.org/2006/05/why-innovation-in-health-care-is-so-hard
6. Kasoju N, Remya NS, Sasi R, Sujesh S, Soman B, Kesavadas C, et al. Digital health: trends, opportunities and challenges in medical devices, pharma and bio-technology. CSI Transactions on ICT. 2023;11(1):11–30.
7. Dziallas M, Blind K. Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technovation. 2019 Feb 1;80–81:3–29.
8. Yadav V, Goyal P. User innovation and entrepreneurship: case studies from rural India. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2015 Apr 22;4(1):5.
9. World Health Organization. Innovation Institute. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Why Commercialize? Available from: https://www.innovation.pitt.edu/for-inventors/why-commercialize/
10. Blank S, Eckhardt JT. Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything
11. Saarikko T, Westergren UH, Blomquist T. Digital transformation: Five recommendations for the digitally conscious firm. Business Horizons. 2020 Nov 1;63(6):825–39.
12. Yangyi M, Ma Y. Innovation Ecosystem Analysis 1986-2017: A Citation-Based Literature Survey [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntv-nsjt1aadkposzje))/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88796
13. Bala Subrahmanya MH. Competitiveness of High-Tech Start-Ups and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Overview. JGBC. 2022 Jun 1;17(1):1–10.
14. Stevens GA, Burley J. 3,000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success! Research Technology Management. 1997;40(3):16–27.
15. Pisano GP. You Need an Innovation Strategy. Harvard Business Review [Internet]. 2015 Jun 1 [cited 2023 Oct 3]; Available from: https://hbr.org/2015/06/you-need-an-innovation-strategy
16. Datta A, Reed R, Jessup L. Commercialization of innovations: an overarching framework and research agenda. American Journal of Business. 2013 Oct 21;28.
17. UNCTAD. Technology and innovation report 2021:: catching technological waves, innovation with equity [Internet]. UN,; 2021 [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3926808
18. Cefis E, Marsili O. Survivor: The role of innovation in firms’ survival. Research Policy. 2006 Jun 1;35(5):626–41.
19. World Health Organization. WHO Compendium of innovative health technologies for low-resource settings 2021. COVID-19 and other health priorities [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049505
20. BIRAC-Home [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.birac.nic.in/
21. PATH. PHC Tech [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.path.org/p/phc-tech/
22. Grand Challenges. Grand Challenges [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.grandchallenges.org/
23. van den Hoed MW, Backhaus R, de Vries E, Hamers JPH, Daniëls R. Factors contributing to innovation readiness in health care organizations: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research. 2022 Aug 5;22(1):997.
24. Process I of M (US) C on the PHE of the F 510(k) C, Wizemann T. Impact of the Regulatory Framework on Medical Device Development and Innovation. In: Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process: Balancing Patient Safety and Innovation: Workshop Report [Internet]. National Academies Press (US); 2010 [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209794/
25. World Trade Organization. WTO | Understanding the WTO - Intellectual property: protection and enforcement [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm
26. Khadem Broojerdi A, Baran Sillo H, Ostad Ali Dehaghi R, Ward M, Refaat M, Parry J. The World Health Organization Global Benchmarking Tool an Instrument to Strengthen Medical Products Regulation and Promote Universal Health Coverage. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 19;7:457.
27. Setyawan O, Rahman S, Santoso PH. INNOVATION, AND DEATH RATE OF ENTERPRISE. International Conference of Business and Social Sciences [Internet]. 2020 Oct 4 [cited 2023 May 19]; Available from: http://61.8.77.171/index.php/icobuss1st/article/view/92
28. Ellwood P, Williams C, Egan J. Crossing the valley of death: Five underlying innovation processes. Technovation. 2022 Jan 1;109:102162.
29. Stern AD. Innovation under Regulatory Uncertainty: Evidence from Medical Technology. J Public Econ. 2017 Jan;145:181–200.
30. Ventola CL. Challenges in Evaluating and Standardizing Medical Devices in Health Care Facilities. P T. 2008 Jun;33(6):348–59.
31. Harvard Business Review. Innovation Risk: How to Make Smarter Decisions [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2013/04/innovation-risk-how-to-make-smarter-decisions
32. Science, technology and innovation policy - OECD [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/
33. Arora A, Wright A, Cheng TKM, Khwaja Z, Seah M. Innovation Pathways in the NHS: An Introductory Review. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Sep 1;55(5):1045–58.
34. Haas DA, Jellinek MS, Kaplan RS. Hospital Budget Systems Are Holding Back Innovation. Harvard Business Review [Internet]. 2018 Mar 29 [cited 2023 Jun 12]; Available from: https://hbr.org/2018/03/hospital-budget-systems-are-holding-back-innovation
35. Ajami S, Bagheri-Tadi T. Barriers for Adopting Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by Physicians. Acta Inform Med. 2013;21(2):129–34.
36. McKinsey & Company. The next wave of healthcare innovation | McKinsey [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare/our-insights/the-next-wave-of-healthcare-innovation-the-evolution-of-ecosystems
37. Global Innovation Index. Global Innovation Index | What is the future of innovation-driven growth? [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home