Budget impact analysis: principles of good practice. Report of the ISPOR Working Group on Good Practices for Budget Impact Analysis II, 2012

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.

анализ влияния на бюджет, калькулятор расчёта стоимости, экономическая оценка, методология, моделирование, budget impact analysis, cost calculator, economic evaluation, methodology, modeling

1. Mauskopf J.A., Sullivan S.D., Annemans L., 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;10:336-47.

2. Brosa M., Gisbert R., Rodriguez Barrios J.M., Principios Soto J. metodos y aplicaciones del analisis del impacto presupuestario en sanidad. Pharmacoecon Spanish Res Artic 2005;2:65-79.

3. Mauskopf J. Prevalence-based economic evaluation. Value Health 1998;1:251-9.

4. Trueman P., Drummond M., Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:609-21.

5. 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;7:1-10.

6. Nuijten M., Mittendorf T., Persson U. Practical issues in handling data input and uncertainty in a budget impact analysis. Eur J Health Econ 2011;12:231 -41.

7. Garattini L., van de Vooren K. Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition. Eur J Health Econ 2011;12:499-502.

8. Garay O. U., Caporale J.E., Pichon-Riviere A., et al. Budgetary impact analysis in health: update with a model using generic approach. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica 2011;28:540-7.

9. Department of Health and Human Services Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Available from: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf. [Accessed March 27, 2012].

10. Goel R., Svivathsan K. Newer oral anticoagulant agents: a new era in medicine. Curr Cardiol Rev 2012;8:158-65.

11. Chang J., Sung J. Health plan budget impact analysis for pimecrolimus. J Manag Care Pharm 2005;11:66-73.

12. Danese M.D., Reyes C., Northridge K., et al. Budget impact model of adding erlotinib to a regimen of gemcitabine for the treatment of locally advanced, nonresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Clin Ther 2008;30:775-84.

13. Dee A., Hutchinson M., De La Harpe D. A budget impact analysis of natalizumab use in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 2012;181:199-204.

14. Smith D.G., Cerulli A., Frech F.H. Use of valsartan for the treatment of heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors: a budget impact analysis. Clin Ther 005;27:951-9

15. Mauskopf J. Meeting the NICE requirements: a Markov model approach. Value Health 2000;3:287-93.

16. Marchetti M., Caruggi M., Colombo G. Cost utility and budget impact of third-generation aromatase inhibitors for advanced breast cancer: a literature-based model analysis of costs in the Italian National Health Service. Clin Ther 2004;26:1546-61.

17. Caro J. J., Huybrechts K.F., Xenakis J.G., et al. Budgetary impact of treating acute bipolar mania in hospitalized patients with quetiapine: an economic analysis of clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2233-42.

18. Mar J., Sainz-Ezkerra M., Miranda-Serrano E. Calculation of prevalence with Markov models: budget impact analysis of thrombolysis for stroke. Med Decis Making 2008;28:481-90.

19. Purmonen T.T., Auvinen P.K., Martikainen J.A. Budget impact analysis of trastuzumab in early breast cancer: a hospital district perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26:163-9.

20. Martin E.G., Paltiel A.D., Walensky R.P., Schackman B.R. Expanded HIV screening in the U.S.: what will it cost government discretionary and entitlement programs? A budget impact analysis. Value Health 2010;13:893-902.

21. Mar J., Arrospide A., Comas M. Budget impact analysis of thrombolysis for stroke in Spain: a discrete event simulation model. Value Health 2010;13:69-76.

22. Colin X., Lafuma A., Costagliola D., et al. Modelling the budget impact of darunavir in the treatment of highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in France. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28(Suppl. 1):183-97.

23. Caro J.J., Briggs A.H., Siebert U., et al. Modeling good research practices - overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health 2012;15:796-803. [24]

24. Briggs A.H., Weinstein M.C., Fenwick E., et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health 2012;15:835-42.

25. Eddy D.M., Hollingworth W., Caro J. J., et al. ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practice Task Force. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health 2012;15:843-50.

26. Arlandis S., Castro D., Errando C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation compared to botulinum neurotoxin or continued medical management in refractory overactive bladder. Value Health 2011;14:219-28.

27. Chiao E., Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2009;25:1445-54.

28. Husereau D., Drummond M., Petrou S., et al. 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;16:231-50.