Systematic Literature Review of Guidelines on Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment.
Journal
Applied health economics and health policy
ISSN: 1179-1896
Titre abrégé: Appl Health Econ Health Policy
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101150314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
accepted:
17
04
2021
pubmed:
7
5
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
6
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this systematic review was to review the recommendations for the conduct of a budget impact analysis in national or organisational guidelines globally. We searched several databases including MELDINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, HTA Database (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment), Econlit and IDEAS Database (RePEc, Research Papers in Economics). The OVID platform was used to run the search in all databases simultaneously. In addition, a search of the grey literature was also conducted. The timeframe was set from 2000 to 2020 with language of publication restricted to English. A total of 13 publications were selected. All the countries where financing of health is predominantly tax funded with public provisioning recommend a healthcare payer (government) perspective. However, countries where a healthcare payer includes a mix of federal government, communities, hospital authorities and patient communities recommend a complementary analysis with a wider societal perspective. While four guidelines prefer a simple cost calculator for costing, the rest rely on a decision modelling approach. None of the guidelines recommend discounting except the Polish guidelines, which recommend discounting at 5%. Only two countries, Belgium and Poland, mention that indirect costs, if significant, should be included in addition to direct costs. The comparative cross-country analysis shows that a standard set of recommendations cannot be directly useful for all as there are contextual differences. Thus, budget impact analysis guidelines must be carefully contextualised in the policy environment of a country so as to reflect the dynamics of health systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33956308
doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00652-6
pii: 10.1007/s40258-021-00652-6
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
825-838Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins CD, Nuijten M, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices: budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(4):336–47.
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x
Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Caro JJ, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis: principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17:4–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
Bilinski A, Neumann P, Cohen J, Thorat T, McDaniel K, Salomon JA. When cost-effective interventions are unaffordable: integrating cost-effectiveness and budget impact in priority setting for global health programs. PLoS Med. 2017;14(10):e1002397.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002397
Ghabri S, Mauskopf J. The use of budget impact analysis in the economic evaluation of new medicines in Australia, England, France and the United States: relationship to cost-effectiveness analysis and methodological challenges. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;19(2):173–4.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0933-3
Mauskopf J. Prevalence-based economic evaluation. Value Health. 1998;1(4):251–9.
doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.1998.140251.x
Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(6):609–21.
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200119060-00001
Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health. 2004;7(1):1–10.
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.71257.x
The National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System. Budget impact analysis guidelines: guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada. Canada: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; 2020.
Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van de Sande S, Thiry N. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition. Health technology assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). 2012. KCE Report 183C. D/2012/10.273/54.
Leelahavarong P. Budget impact analysis. J Med Assoc Thai 2014;97:S65–71.
pubmed: 24964701
Neyt M, Cleemput I, Van de Sande S, Thiry N. Belgian guidelines for budget impact analyses. Acta Clin Belg. 2014;70:174–80.
Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. The Netherlands: The National Health Care Institute; 2016.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Guidelines for preparing a submission to the PBAC. Version 4. Draft for public consultation. 2016. http://www.pbs.gov.au/reviews/pbacguidelines-review-files/draft-revised-pbac-guidelines-version4.0part-a-and-b.docx . Accessed 24 Feb 2016.
Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the budget impact analysis of health technologies in Ireland; 2018.
Ghabri S, Autin E, Poullié AI, Josselin JM. The French National Authority for Health (HAS) guidelines for conducting budget impact analyses (BIA). Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):407–17.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0602-5
Ferreira-Da-Silva AL, Ribeiro RA, Santos VC, Elias FT, d’Oliveira AL, Polanczyk CA. Proposal of Brazilian guidelines for conducting budget impact analysis for health technologies. Cad Saude Publica. 2012;28(7):1223–38.
doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2012000700002
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of economic appraisal 2013. 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-themethods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf . Accessed 24 Feb 2016.
Garattini L, van de Vooren K. Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(6):499–502.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0348-5
Nuijten MJ, Mittendorf T, Persson U. Practical issues in handling data input and uncertainty in a budget impact analysis. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):231–41.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0236-4
Foroutan N, Tarride JE, Xie F, Levine M. A methodological review of national and transnational pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:821.
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S178825
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York: Wiley; 2019.
Tacconelli E. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(4):226.
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70065-7
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Assessing resource impact process manual: technology appraisals and highly specialised technologies. 2017. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/Into-practice/assessing-resource-impact-process-manual-ta-hst.pdf .
Chugh Y, Dhiman RK, Premkumar M, Prinja S, Singh Grover G, Bahuguna P. Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic sofosbuvir-velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221769.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221769
Nemati E, Nosratnejad S, Doshmangir L, Gavgani VZ. The out of pocket payments in low and middle-income countries and the affecting factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bali Med J. 2019;8(3):733.
doi: 10.15562/bmj.v8i3.958
Brandt J, Shearer B, Morgan SG. Prescription drug coverage in Canada: a review of the economic, policy and political considerations for universal pharmacare. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2018;11(1):1–3.
doi: 10.1186/s40545-018-0154-x
Van de Vooren K, Duranti S, Curto A, Garattini L. A critical systematic review of budget impact analyses on drugs in the EU countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(1):33–40.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0064-7
Mauskopf J, Earnshaw S. A methodological review of US budget-impact models for new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(11):1111–31.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0426-8
Ghabri S, Mauskopf J. The use of budget impact analysis in the economic evaluation of new medicines in Australia, England, France and the United States: relationship to cost-effectiveness analysis and methodological challenges. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(2):173–5.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0933-3
Snider JT, Sussell J, Tebeka MG, Gonzalez A, Cohen JT, Neumann P. Challenges with forecasting budget impact: a case study of six ICER reports. Value Health. 2019;22(3):332–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.10.005