X-twitter Linkedin

From analysis to action - instantly in your hands.

Our FREE Value Proposition Development Tool helps MedTech innovators, reimbursement & market access professionals and commercial teams clearly define and communicate the value of their technology to the stakeholders who matter most—physicians, patients, healthcare facilities, and payers. Through a structured assessment, the tool evaluates your technology’s impact across clinical, economic, and operational domains, identifying strengths, highlighting evidence gaps, and pinpointing opportunities for targeted evidence generation. The result is a data-driven, stakeholder-specific value narrative supported by a scored roadmap for building the evidence needed to accelerate adoption, reimbursement, and market success.

This tool is intended to provide an initial scan of specific value drivers for a given technology. It calculates a “Value Score” that can then be used to refine your Value Proposition and guide evidence generation to support.

The Tool will take you through a series of questions which are designed to evaluate your value proposition and evidence gaps based on a 1-5 scoring system.  A final score for each domain as well as a combined score is provided. Once complete, your personalized results will be emailed to you.

Value Proposition Development Tool

About You

Some description about this section

Disclaimer

By accessing and using the Value Proposition Development Tool, you acknowledge and agree to the following:

  • The tool is provided for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to serve as legal, regulatory, reimbursement, or clinical advice.
  • The results generated are based on the information you provide and do not guarantee market access, reimbursement, or regulatory approval.
  • All insights, reports, or recommendations are intended to help you assess potential value drivers, identify possible evidence gaps, and explore strategies for further development.
  • You are solely responsible for validating findings, interpreting results, and determining any subsequent actions.
  • rma3 and its affiliates are not liable for any decisions, outcomes, or consequences resulting from the use of this tool.
  • Use of the tool indicates your agreement to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and organizational policies.

If you do not agree to these terms, please do not proceed with using the tool.

Project Information

Start by reviewing the AdvaMed Value Framework.

Instructions

You will be taken through four Impact Scorecards and asked a series of questions to assess the comprehensive value of the medical technology under consideration, to which you will enter a relative Value Score (1-5). The information entered into these individual Impact Scorecards will be automatically rolled up into a final score.

Definition Value Score
Less than NBA 1
Parity with NBA 2
Incrementally better than NBA 3
Significantly better than NBA 4
Game-Changer 5

In assigning a Value Score, consider the [anticipated] performance of the new technology compared to the Next-Best Alternative (NBA) listed above, as well as our ability to measure it.

Scoring should consider the 4Ps, patient populations, standards of care, NBAs/comparators, time to value, or any information that is relevant to the score given.

A. Clinical Impact

Value Subcategory

Clinical Efficacy and Effectiveness

Value Driver

Improvement in clinical outcomes (disease specific morbidity measures, reduction in mortality, reduction in rate of disease progression, and reduction in the burden of follow-up care)

1. Does the technology affect clinical outcomes compared to other treatment options (i.e., Next-Best Alternative listed above)?

2. Does the technology impact the rate of disease progression?

3. Does the technology impact the burden of follow-up care (short- and long-term), function, activities of daily living (ADLs)?

4. Does the technology change patient recovery time and/or post-surgical care (e.g., number of follow-ups, intensity, site of care, rehabilitation)?

Value Driver

Improvement in compliance with plan of care.

5. Does the technology influence patient compliance or engagement in their plan of care?

Value Subcategory

Patient Safety & Tolerability

Value Driver

Improved patient safety & tolerability vs. alternative treatments
Effect on patient risk trade-offs based on safety profile and outcomes

6. Does the technology impact patient safety (lower/higher risk of complications, less/more invasive, etc.) relative to available alternatives?

Value Subcategory

Quality of Life

Value Driver

Improvement in quality of life (physical and social well-being)

7. Does the technology address regaining function, including mobility, re-integration into daily life, improvement in activities of daily life, etc.?

8. Does the technology impact quality of life (physical and social well-being) in the short and/or long term?

Clinical Efficacy & Effectiveness
Patient Safety & Tolerability
Quality of Life

Clinical Impact Score

B. Non-Clinical Patient Impact

Value Subcategory

Patient Experience

Value Driver

More preferable site of care (ease of access)

1. Does this technology create more/less preferable options for the patient (e.g., more accessible care settings, less intensive care settings)?

Value Driver

Predictability of care/experiences vs. expectations

2. Does the technology impact the patent experience?

3. Does the technology contribute to the patient, family, and caregiver experience of care related to quality, safety, and access across settings?

4. Does the technology enable patients and their families and caregivers to navigate, coordinate, and manage their care appropriately and effectively?

5. How does the technology address predictability of care needed?

Value Driver

Reintegration/reengagement of patient into society

6. Does the technology affect ADLs, mobility, returning to work, etc.?

Value Driver

Reduced burden on caregivers due to better patient experience and outcomes

7. Does the technology reduce the burden on caregivers?

Value Subcategory

Patient Economics

Value Driver

Impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) patient expenses

8. Does the technology impact affordability of treatment/OOP expense for different patients?

Value Driver

Reduced time to return to ADLs

9. Does the technology help the patient return to ADLs and, therefore, the workforce faster?

10. Does the technology require less one-to-one care and patient monitoring, which will decrease caregiver/nursing expenses?

Patient Experience
Patient Economics

Non-Clinical Patient Impact Score

C. Care Delivery Revenue & Cost Impact

Value Subcategory

Quality of Care Economics

Value Driver

Economic impact of performance-based reimbursement metrics (e.g., hospital-acquired infections, readmissions, LOS, cost efficiency)

1. Does the technology enable the right choice of treatment, for the right patient, at the right time, at the right place?

 

2. Does the technology impact the economics associated with the quality of care provided?

3. Are there direct and/or indirect cost benefits of improved quality of care?

Value Subcategory

Care Efficiency

Value Driver

Economic impact of improved system throughput & workflow/efficient time & resource utilization (physician's time and effort, automation, disposable utilization, site of care, staff utilization, OR utilization, service/maintenance, LOS, time in ICU/ED)

4. Does the technology affect costs related to system throughput, workflows, and care efficiency (site of care, staff)?

5. Are there meaningful reductions in time & resource utilization for the system in the short term and long term?

6. Does the technology affect costs based on the elimination of waste and unnecessary procedures?

Value Driver

Impact of costs associated with clinical outcomes variance

7. Does the technology help reduce costs associated with variance in clinical outcomes across individual physicians/sites of care?

Value Driver

Economic impact of improved adoption of new care practices due to easier/more effective training/education

8. Does the technology affect costs based on the improvement in adoption of new care practices due to improved ease of use?

Quality of Care Economics
Care Efficiency

Care Delivery Revenue & Cost Impact Score

D. Public & Population Impact

Value Subcategory

Population Health

Value Driver

Improved population health (burden of illness/disease)

1. Does the technology impact overall public and population health measures (e.g., life expectancy free of disability)?

2. Does the technology address any socioeconomic disparities in care?

3. Does the technology impact patient access to care?

4. Does the technology help people re-engage in society?

Value Driver

Impact to overall private and public health care cost

5. Does this technology impact overall health care costs, private and public?

Value Driver

More efficient private and public spending

6. Does the technology help lower unnecessary private and public spending?

Value Subcategory

Workforce Productivity

Value Driver

Increased employee productivity (reduced absenteeism, improved presenteeism)

7. Does this technology impact employee productivity and attendance?

Value Driver

Increased caregiver productivity (reduced absenteeism, improved presenteeism)

8. Does this technology impact ability for caregiver to provide care and address productivity and attendance?

Population Health
Workforce Productivity

Public & Population Impact

Composite Value Score

Composite Score

Clinical Impact
Non-Clinical Patient Impact
Revenue & Cost Impact
Population Health Impact

The Value Proposition Development Tool is derived from AdvaMed’s framework for the comprehensive assessment of medical technologies and considers the full spectrum of value that a medical technology may contribute (Value Drivers).

Copyright © 2025 Reimbursement & Market Access Cubed. All rights reserved.

Reimbursement & Market Access Cubed
info@rma3.com

Scroll to Top

Connect with an Advisory Board Member

Advisory Board Connect