Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:52:44.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing the impact of budget impact analysis: incorporating uncertainty for decision-makers in small markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2022

Mark Hofmeister Open the ORCID record for Mark Hofmeister [Opens in a new window]  and
Fiona Clement Open the ORCID record for Fiona Clement [Opens in a new window]
Mark Hofmeister*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada
Fiona Clement
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Mark Hofmeister, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For decision-makers considering new medicines for reimbursement and public use, both value for money and affordability are important considerations. Whereas a cost-effectiveness model provides information about value for money, a budget impact assessment (BIA) is customized to a specific context and estimates the total investment needed; one part of affordability. Both analytic approaches have parameter uncertainty within them, yet comparatively little attention is given to parameter uncertainty in BIA. Currently, within BIA, uncertainty exploration is limited to point estimates for plausible scenarios, prompting the question: can a decision-maker be confident in point estimates? Within this paper, our intent is to revitalize the discussion of uncertainty in BIA. In the context of health technology assessments submitted to support reimbursement decision-making, we propose reliance on probabilistic sensitivity analysis conducted in the cost-effectiveness model. If assumptions made in a cost-effectiveness model are valid, probabilistic cost estimates from the model, with the same perspective adopted as the BIA, should also inform BIA. Mean and variance of population outcomes, given parameter uncertainty in model inputs, are estimable from model outputs. As sufficiently large random samples are drawn from a population, the distribution of sample means will follow an approximately normal distribution. Therefore, when drawing samples from the model to inform estimates of budget impact, the assumption of an approximately normal distribution for costs is reasonable. We propose that the variance in mean costs from the cost-effectiveness model also reflects the variance in budget impact estimates and should be used to estimate budget impact confidence intervals.

Keywords

BudgetsUncertaintyCost–benefit analysis
Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e15
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beletsi, A, Koutrafouri, V, Karampli, E, Pavi, E. Comparing use of health technology assessment in pharmaceutical policy among earlier and more recent adopters in the European Union. Value Health Reg Issues. 2018;16:81–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
Shiell, A, Donaldson, C, Mitton, C, Currie, G. Health economic evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:85–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, A, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2006.Google Scholar
Sullivan, SD, Mauskopf, JA, Augustovski, F, Jaime Caro, J, 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;17:5–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuijten, MJC, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, TP. Cost estimating risk and cost estimating uncertainty guidelines. Acquis Rev Q. 1997: 339–48.Google Scholar
Vreman, RA, Naci, H, Goettsch, WG, Mantel-Teeuwisse, AK, Schneeweiss, SG, Leufkens, HGM, et al. Decision making under uncertainty: Comparing regulatory and health technology assessment reviews of medicines in the United States and Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108:350–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamrock, F, McCullagh, L, Tilson, L, Barry, M. A retrospective analysis of budget impact models submitted to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:895–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the budget impact analysis of health technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2018.Google Scholar
Drummond, M, Barbieri, M, Cook, J, Glick, HA, Lis, J, Malik, F, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12:409–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foroutan, N, Tarride, J-E, Xie, F, Levine, M. A methodological review of national and transnational pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:821–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bojke, L, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Palmer, S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: A review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12:739–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Hagan, A, Stevenson, M, Madan, J. Monte carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: Efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA. Health Econ. 2007;16:1009–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, S, Datta-Gupta, A. Chapter 3 - distributions and models thereof. In: Mishra, S, Datta-Gupta, A, editors. Applied statistical modeling and data analytics. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier; 2018. p. 31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, A. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: Statistical representation of parameter uncertainty. Value Health. 2005;8:1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2013. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781 (accessed December 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Schwartz, LM, Woloshin, S, Welch, HG. Risk communication in clinical practice: Putting cancer in context. JNCI Monographs. 1999;1999:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18:341–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwak, SG, Kim, JH. Central limit theorem: The cornerstone of modern statistics. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017;70:144–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Concato, J, Shah, N, Horwitz, RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;12:33–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Hofmeister and Clement supplementary material

Hofmeister and Clement supplementary material

Download Hofmeister and Clement supplementary material(File)
File 150.9 KB