Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing



If you are a health or social care provider

Health and social care organizations as well as private insurance companies increasingly participate in the co-design of technology-based solutions and use the evidence resulting from real life pilots to assess their effectiveness and utility and take their decision to invest or to buy.

In the face of restricted budgets and the increasingly ageing population, public service providers are increasingly using Health Technology and Intervention Assessment as a way of managing healthcare budgets by providing access to care interventions that demonstrate robust clinical and economic effectiveness.

Private payers are also important users of Health Technology and Intervention Assessment which informs their coverage decisions thus impacting the adoption and use of new technologies in emerging fields such as personalized medicine.



If you are a policy maker

MAFEIP represents a valuable instrument in Health Technology and Intervention Assessment to inform policy decision making.

Actually, the importance of Health Technology and Intervention Assessment is widely recognized in Europe and beyond. It also received further acknowledgement in the WHO Resolution on “Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage” which urged Member States to formulate and implement national strategic plans concerning capacity-building for and introduction of Health Intervention and Technology Assessment, and build upon existing best practices in transparent, evidence-informed health policy and decision-making.

MAFEIP can assess with better precision the value of the innovation for citizens and other stakeholders and support the systematic evaluation of properties, effects, and/or impacts of health technologies and interventions in different population target groups. For instance, the MAFEIP tool evaluates over a cohort of patient the incremental gain provided by the intervention under assessment. The model returns the results for each age-gender combination either for males or females, or as a weighted average for the age and gender distribution in the target population. This allows to assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of the proposed intervention for certain population target groups and better target policy decision based on specific needs.



If you are a company

Big companies, SMEs and startups can take advantage of MAFEIP utility in assessing the potential impact of new business propositions for healthcare interventions and thus guiding the decision making process for further technology developments.

Since pricing & reimbursement (funding) policy is developing and the use of Health Technology Assessment is evolving, companies should address these issues by developing and reinforcing their both strategic and technical market access capabilities.

To this purpose, it is a valuable instrument both in the pre-market validation phase and on later stages of the product life cycle.



If you are a researcher

MAFEIP has a relevant potential to improve the quality and relevance of future research and to better serve the information needs of patients, clinicians, payers, and other decision makers by helping to identify gaps in evidence.

Despite substantial increases in public and private funding for clinical research over the last decade, research output still often fails to provide specific answers for many common, important questions posed by healthcare decision-makers.

MAFEIP offers a source of comprehensive information that could be used by researchers to better formulate research questions around key stakeholders’ needs and research funding agencies to bridge the evidence gap and prioritize those issues in the research agenda that are relevant to decision-makers.

Those it can provide important contributions to the emerging fields of comparative-effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research and help reduce the uncertainties that have often limited the value of research in clinical and health policy decision making.