Evidence Requirements for Medical Device Reimbursement in France: An Analysis of the LPPR 2024 Guidelines

by Odelle Technology

The French healthcare system is well-regarded for its extensive coverage and robust framework for evaluating and reimbursing medical devices. At the heart of this system is the Liste des Produits et Prestations Remboursables (LPPR), a regulatory mechanism that mandates a comprehensive assessment of both clinical and economic benefits before medical devices can be reimbursed. The 2024 guidelines issued by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) lay out stringent requirements for submitting evidence to the Commission Nationale d’Évaluation des Dispositifs Médicaux et des Technologies de Santé (CNEDiMTS). This paper provides an in-depth analysis of these guidelines, with a focus on the key elements necessary for a successful dossier submission and examines how the LPPR system integrates with the Classification Commune des Actes Médicaux (CCAM) codes to ensure comprehensive reimbursement for both medical devices and related procedures.

1. Overview of the LPPR System

The LPPR system is fundamental to the process of medical device reimbursement in France. It ensures that only those devices demonstrating proven clinical efficacy and safety are eligible for reimbursement by the national health insurance system. The LPPR encompasses both implantable and non-implantable medical devices, all of which must undergo a rigorous evaluation process before being listed.

1.1 Structure and Process

The process of including a medical device on the LPPR list begins with the submission of a detailed dossier to the CNEDiMTS via the SESAME platform. The dossier is divided into three critical parts:

  • Part 1: Summary and Identification of the Application – This section provides an overview of the device, including its intended use, the patient population, and a summary of the clinical and economic evidence.
  • Part 2: Medico-Technical Dossier – This part contains detailed clinical evidence, including the results of clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, which demonstrate the device’s safety and efficacy.
  • Part 3: Economic Dossier – This section provides an economic evaluation of the device, including cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses, which are essential for demonstrating the value of the device to the healthcare system.

Each part of the dossier plays a crucial role in the comprehensive assessment of the device, ensuring that it meets the stringent requirements set by HAS.

2. Evidence Requirements for LPPR Submission

2.1 Clinical Evidence: Actual Clinical Benefit (ACB) and Clinical Added Value (CAV)

The core of the dossier submission lies in proving the device’s Actual Clinical Benefit (ACB) and Clinical Added Value (CAV). These evaluations are critical, as they form the foundation for CNEDiMTS’s decision on whether the device should be listed on the LPPR.

2.1.1 Actual Clinical Benefit (ACB)

The ACB assessment evaluates the device’s effectiveness, safety, and its role within the current therapeutic or diagnostic landscape. The 2024 guidelines emphasize that the device must demonstrate a significant clinical benefit, particularly concerning morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. The evaluation of ACB considers several factors:

  • The Place of the Device: How the device fits into the overall therapeutic strategy and compares to existing treatments or diagnostic tools.
  • Therapeutic Effect: The device’s clinical outcomes, including any reduction in adverse effects and improvements in patient management.
  • Public Health Impact: The broader impact of the device on population health, including its potential to address unmet needs and its effect on the healthcare system.

These factors must be substantiated with robust clinical data, primarily derived from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

2.1.2 Clinical Added Value (CAV)

The CAV assessment involves comparing the new device to existing standards of care or available alternatives. The guidelines categorize CAV into five levels, ranging from major added value (CAV I) to no added value (CAV V). To achieve a high CAV rating, the device must demonstrate significant clinical benefits over existing treatments, such as improved outcomes, fewer side effects, or enhanced patient compliance.

The CAV analysis should be supported by:

  • Comparator Analysis: A thorough comparison with existing devices or treatments, justified by current clinical guidelines or routine practice.
  • Endpoints: Valid clinical endpoints, such as mortality, morbidity, and validated quality-of-life measures.
  • Methodological Rigor: A preference for RCTs or, where these are not feasible, well-designed observational studies that can reliably demonstrate the added value of the device.

2.2 Systematic Documentary Search

A crucial component of the dossier is the systematic documentary search, which aims to identify all relevant clinical data related to the device. The guidelines specify that this search must be comprehensive and include:

  • International Bibliographic Databases: Key databases such as PubMed, using search terms that include the device name, category, and relevant study types.
  • Health Technology Assessment Reports: Reports from national and international health technology assessment agencies.
  • Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: These are essential for summarizing existing evidence and providing context for the device’s efficacy.

The search strategy, including the databases consulted, the terms used, and the selection criteria for studies, must be explicitly documented in the dossier to ensure the evaluation process is rigorous and reproducible.

2.3 Simplified Dossier Options

In specific scenarios, the guidelines allow for a simplified dossier submission. This option is available when:

  • The device represents a minor modification or range extension of a product already listed on the LPPR.
  • No new clinical benefits are claimed, and the device is an incremental improvement over an existing product.

A simplified dossier requires less detailed evidence but must still include sufficient data to justify the continued or new inclusion of the device on the LPPR.

2.4 Special Considerations for Connected Medical Devices (CMDs)

The 2024 guidelines also address the growing category of Connected Medical Devices (CMDs), which integrate digital technologies for data collection, monitoring, and therapeutic purposes. Additional documentation is required for CMDs, particularly concerning:

  • Telecommunication Functions: The reliability and security of data transmission and processing.
  • Decision-Making Algorithms: Detailed descriptions of any machine learning or artificial intelligence components used in the device, including the algorithm’s design, validation, and impact on clinical outcomes.

These considerations ensure that CMDs are evaluated not only for their clinical efficacy but also for their technological reliability and integration into the broader healthcare system.

3. Public Health Impact and Economic Considerations

3.1 Transposability of Study Findings

A critical aspect of the dossier is the transposability of clinical trial findings to real-world practice. The guidelines require that the dossier address:

  • Population Comparability: How closely the study population mirrors the target population in routine clinical practice.
  • Medico-Technical Environment: The practical aspects of device implementation, including the required care team and infrastructure.
  • Risk of Misuse: The potential for incorrect use or over/under-prescription, and the measures to mitigate these risks.

3.2 Economic Impact and Public Health Policies

The economic dossier must address the device’s potential impact on public health expenditure and its alignment with national health policies. This includes:

  • Cost-Effectiveness: An analysis of the device’s cost in relation to its clinical benefits, typically measured using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) to determine the cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained.
  • Budget Impact Analysis: Estimating the financial implications of adopting the device within the French healthcare system, including factors such as the market penetration rate, eligible patient population, and potential savings from reduced hospitalizations or complications.

4. The Complementary Role of CCAM Codes

While the LPPR system focuses on the reimbursement of the medical devices themselves, the CCAM codes cover the medical procedures associated with these devices. This dual approach ensures that once a device is approved for reimbursement under the LPPR, the procedures required to utilize the device are also covered, facilitating complete integration into clinical practice.

The CCAM codes are vital for ensuring that healthcare providers are reimbursed for the medical acts associated with the use of new technologies, making these innovations accessible to patients. The interplay between the LPPR and CCAM systems allows for a seamless process where both the device and the associated medical procedures are financially supported, thus ensuring comprehensive patient care.

5. Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA)

5.1 Overview and Implementation in France

Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) is increasingly recognized as crucial in evaluating and adopting innovative medical devices at the hospital level. A national survey conducted between March and June 2022 revealed that 91% of surveyed hospitals in France reported having processes dedicated to evaluating innovative medical devices. However, only 24% had formalized HB-HTA units, primarily in larger hospitals with over 500 beds and university hospitals.

5.2 Importance of HB-HTA for MedTech Adoption

The survey highlights the need for greater formalization and recognition of HB-HTA activities across French hospitals. Collaboration between local HB-HTA units and national HTA agencies like HAS could streamline the evaluation and adoption of new medical technologies, ensuring timely access to innovative devices that meet stringent clinical and economic standards.

6. Conclusion

The 2024 LPPR guidelines for medical device reimbursement in France set a high standard for evidence-based submissions, ensuring that only devices with proven clinical and economic value are included on the LPPR list. The complementary role of the CCAM codes further supports the integration of these devices into the healthcare system by covering the associated medical procedures. The combined efforts of the LPPR, CCAMThe 2024 LPPR guidelines for medical device reimbursement in France establish rigorous requirements to ensure that only devices demonstrating clear clinical and economic value are approved for reimbursement. These guidelines emphasize the need for comprehensive evidence, including detailed clinical and economic evaluations, and are supported by complementary systems such as the CCAM codes and hospital-based health technology assessments (HB-HTA).

You may also like

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but if you require more information click the 'Read More' link Accept Read More