Innovation in health technologies (pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical) has made major contributions to improved life expectancy and quality of life in past decades. However, as biomedical and digital innovations accelerate in healthcare across disease states, the methods and practices to define, measure, and reward innovation in the context of health technology assessment (HTA) are not keeping pace. A growing pressure to demonstrate the “value” of new health technologies and recent updates in HTA frameworks have revealed the need to consider a more comprehensive set of attributes to define and measure the innovative properties of novel health technologies.

With our multi-stakeholder partners, IVI launched the Valuing Innovation Project (VIP), a multi-phase initiative, to undertake several activities to help advance the dialogue, identify gaps in current HTA approaches, and build consensus on practical methods to better measure and reward innovation.


  • Define innovation in the context of HTA and the need for exploration of process, methods, and data improvements
  • Prioritize areas for HTA methods exploration and applied research needed to improve how HTA can better account for innovation across different technology types
  • Identify innovative solutions to address prioritized areas for research that focus on actionable strategies that IVI and different stakeholders in the health system can take to accelerate change and share learning on these improvements

Project Phases and Timeline


Joshua Krieger, PhD

Harvard Business School

Michael Graglia

SynGAP Research Fund

Key Publications

References and Resources

  1. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137-156. doi:10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2017.06.024
  2. De Solà-Morales O, Cunningham D, Flume M, Overton PM, Shalet N, Capri S. Defining Innovation with Respect to New Medicines: A Systematic Review from a Payer Perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(3):224-240. doi:10.1017/S0266462318000259
  3. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science (80- ). 2013;342(6157):468-472. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.1240474/SUPPL_FILE/UZZI.SM.PDF
  4. Garrison LP, Kamal-Bahl S, Towse A. Toward a Broader Concept of Value: Identifying and Defining Elements for an Expanded Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Value Heal. 2017;20(2):213-216. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.005
  5. Hofmann S, Branner J, Misra A, Lintener H. A Review of Current Approaches to Defining and Valuing Innovation in Health Technology Assessment. Value Heal. 2021;24(12):1773-1783. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.06.006
  6. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Mordoh A, Sussex J. The Many Faces of Innovation.; 2012.
  7. Hemel DJ, Ouellette LL. Valuing Medical Innovation. Stanford Law Rev. Published online 2023. doi:10.2139/SSRN.4195858
  8. Diaby V, Ali A, Pharmd AB, Fuhr J, Braithwaite D. Incorporating health equity into value assessment: frameworks, promising alternatives, and future directions. J Manag care Spec Pharm. 2021;27(9-a Suppl):S22-S29. doi:10.18553/JMCP.2021.27.9-A.S22
  9. Xie RZ, Malik E de F, Linthicum MT, Bright JL. Putting Stakeholder Engagement at the Center of Health Economic Modeling for Health Technology Assessment in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(6):631-638. doi:10.1007/S40273-021-01036-3
  10. Xie RZ, Towse A, Garrison LP. Should We Pay for Scientific Knowledge Spillovers? The Underappreciated Value of “Failed” R&D Efforts. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1). doi:10.1017/S0266462322000150
  11. Li M, Garrison L, Lee W, Kowal S, Wong W, Veenstra D. A Pragmatic Guide to Assessing Real Option Value for Medical Technologies. Value Heal. Published online June 23, 2022. doi:10.1016/J.JVAL.2022.05.014
  12. Neumann PJ, Podolsky MI, Basu A, Ollendorf DA, Cohen JT. Do Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Account for Drug Genericization? A Literature Review and Assessment of Implications. Value Health. 2022;25(1):59-68. doi:10.1016/J.JVAL.2021.06.014
  13. Kowal S, Ng CD, Schuldt R, Sheinson D, Cookson R. The Impact of Funding Inpatient Treatments for COVID-19 on Health Equity in the United States: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Value Heal. 2022;0(0). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2022.08.010
  14. Chiou JY, Magazzini L, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M. Learning from successes and failures in pharmaceutical R&D. J Evol Econ. 2016;26(2):271-290. doi:10.1007/s00191-015-0439-z
  15. Rejon-Parrilla JC, Espin J, Epstein D. How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment. Health Econ Rev. 2022;12(1):1-11. doi:10.1186/S13561-021-00342-Y/TABLES/2
  16. Perfetto EM, Oehrlein EM, Love TR, Schoch S, Kennedy A, Bright J. Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: What They are and Why We Need Them. Patient – Patient-Centered Outcomes Res 2022. Published online June 2, 2022:1-9. doi:10.1007/S40271-022-00583-X
  17. Linthicum MT, dosReis S, Slejko JF, Mattingly TJ, Bright JL. The Importance of Collaboration in Pursuit of Patient-Centered Value Assessment. Patient. Published online August 28, 2020:1-4. doi:10.1007/s40271-020-00446-3
  18. dosReis S, Bozzi LM, Butler B, et al. Preferences for Treatments for Major Depressive Disorder: Formative Qualitative Research Using the Patient Experience. Patient – Patient-Centered Outcomes Res 2022. Published online September 19, 2022:1-10. doi:10.1007/S40271-022-00596-6
  19. A Value-Drive Framework for Evaluating Healthcare Innovations.; 2021. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. Accessed August 31, 2022.