Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force
- PMID: 24438712
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force
Abstract
Background: Budget impact analyses (BIAs) are an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of a health care intervention and are increasingly required by reimbursement authorities as part of a listing or reimbursement submission.
Objectives: The objective of this report was to present updated guidance on methods for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses. This update was needed, in part, because of developments in BIA methods as well as a growing interest, particularly in emerging markets, in matters related to affordability and population health impacts of health care interventions.
Methods: The Task Force was approved by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Health Sciences Policy Council and appointed by its Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of BIAs; worked in academia and industry and as advisors to governments; and came from several countries in North America and South America, Oceania, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force solicited comments on the drafts from a core group of external reviewers and, more broadly, from the membership of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
Results: The Task Force recommends that the design of a BIA for a new health care intervention should take into account relevant features of the health care system, possible access restrictions, the anticipated uptake of the new intervention, and the use and effects of the current and new interventions. The key elements of a BIA include estimating the size of the eligible population, the current mix of treatments and the expected mix after the introduction of the new intervention, the cost of the treatment mixes, and any changes expected in condition-related costs. Where possible, the BIA calculations should be performed by using a simple cost calculator approach because of its ease of use for budget holders. In instances, however, in which the changes in eligible population size, disease severity mix, or treatment patterns cannot be credibly captured by using the cost calculator approach, a cohort or patient-level condition-specific model may be used to estimate the budget impact of the new intervention, accounting appropriately for those entering and leaving the eligible population over time. In either case, the BIA should use data that reflect values specific to a particular decision maker's population. Sensitivity analysis should be of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision maker. The validation of the model should include at least face validity with decision makers and verification of the calculations. Data sources for the BIA should include published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for the efficacy and safety of the current and new interventions as well as the decision maker's own population for the other parameter estimates, where possible. Other data sources include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information, and, in special circumstances, expert opinion. Reporting of the BIA should provide detailed information about the input parameter values and calculations at a level of detail that would allow another modeler to replicate the analysis. The outcomes of the BIA should be presented in the format of interest to health care decision makers. In a computer program, options should be provided for different categories of costs to be included or excluded from the analysis.
Conclusions: We recommend a framework for the BIA, provide guidance on the acquisition and use of data, and offer a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific BIA guidelines but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.
Keywords: budget impact analysis; cost calculator; economic evaluation; methodology; modeling.
© 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Published by International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis.Value Health. 2007 Sep-Oct;10(5):336-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x. Value Health. 2007. PMID: 17888098
-
The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10. Value Health. 2009. PMID: 19744291
-
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002. Value Health. 2013. PMID: 23538175
-
Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost effectiveness analyses: issues and recommendations: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report--Part I.Value Health. 2010 Jan-Feb;13(1):3-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00663.x. Epub 2009 Oct 28. Value Health. 2010. PMID: 19874571
-
Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report.Value Health. 2015 Mar;18(2):161-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001. Value Health. 2015. PMID: 25773551 Review.
Cited by
-
Budget impact of upadacitinib in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Argentina.Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2024 Aug 19;41(2):129-139. doi: 10.17843/rpmesp.2024.412.12934. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2024. PMID: 39166635 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the Economic Benefit of Earlier Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Diagnosis Using a Multivariate Assay Panel (MAP).ACR Open Rheumatol. 2020 Nov;2(11):629-639. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11177. Epub 2020 Oct 12. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2020. PMID: 33044050 Free PMC article.
-
Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review.Front Pharmacol. 2021 Apr 21;12:630949. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.630949. eCollection 2021. Front Pharmacol. 2021. PMID: 33967766 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Budget Impact Analysis of Olaparib for the Management of Patients with Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR)-Mutated Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Argentina.Pharmacoecon Open. 2024 Sep;8(5):727-738. doi: 10.1007/s41669-024-00508-4. Epub 2024 Jul 13. Pharmacoecon Open. 2024. PMID: 38997618 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing the Budget Impact Model for Institutional Use: A Tool with Practical Applications for the Hospital Oncology Pharmacy.Hosp Pharm. 2016 Jun;51(6):452-60. doi: 10.1310/hpj5106-452. Hosp Pharm. 2016. PMID: 27354746 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical