scholarly journals Budget Impact Analysis of Treatment Flow Optimization in Epilepsy Patients: Estimating Potential Impacts with Increased Referral Rate to Specialized Care

2021 ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
Iwasaki Masaki ◽  
Saito Takashi ◽  
Akiko Tsubota ◽  
Tatsunori Murata ◽  
Yuta Fukuoka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Referral Rate ◽  
Budget Impact Analysis ◽  
Flow Optimization ◽  
Specialized Care ◽  
Optimized Treatment

Objectives: We developed a Markov model to simulate a treatment flow of epilepsy patients who refer to specialized care from non-specialized care, and to surgery from specialized care for estimation of patient distributions and expenditures caused by increasing the referral rate for specialized care. Methods: This budget impact analysis of treatment flow optimization in epilepsy patients was performed as a long-term simulation using the Markov model by comparing the current treatment flow and the optimized treatment flow. In the model, we simulated the prognosis of new onset 5-year-old epilepsy patients (assuming to represent epilepsy occurring between 0 and 10 years of age) treated over a lifetime period. Direct costs of pharmacotherapies, management fees and surgeries are included in the analysis to evaluate the annual budget impact in Japan. Results: In the current treatment flow, the number of refractory patients treated with four drugs by non-specialized care were estimated as 8766 and yielded JPY5.8 billion annually. However, in the optimized treatment flow, the number of patients treated with four drugs by non-specialized care significantly decreased and who continued the monotherapy increased. The costs for the four-drug therapy by non-specialized care were eliminated. Hence cost-saving of JPY9.5 billion (-5% of the current treatment flow) in total national expenditures would be expected. Conclusion: This study highlights that any policy decision-making for referral optimization to specialized care in appropriate epilepsy patients would be feasible with a cost-savings or very few budget impacts. However, important information in the decision-making such as transition probability to the next therapy or excuse for sensitive limitations is not available currently. Therefore, further research with reliable data such as big data analysis or a national survey with real-world treatment patterns is needed.

scholarly journals Budget Impact Analysis of Treatment Flow Optimization in Epilepsy Patients: Estimating Potential Impacts with Increased Referral Rate to Specialized Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
Iwasaki Masak Masaki ◽  
Saito Takashi ◽  
Akiko Tsubota ◽  
Tatsunori Murata ◽  
Yuta Fukuoka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Referral Rate ◽  
Budget Impact Analysis ◽  
Flow Optimization ◽  
Specialized Care ◽  
Optimized Treatment

Objectives: We developed a Markov model to simulate a treatment flow of epilepsy patients who refer to specialized care from non-specialized care, and to surgery from specialized care for estimation of patient distributions and expenditures caused by increasing the referral rate for specialized care. Methods: This budget impact analysis of treatment flow optimization in epilepsy patients was performed as a long-term simulation using the Markov model by comparing the current treatment flow and the optimized treatment flow. In the model, we simulated the prognosis of new onset 5-year-old epilepsy patients (assuming to represent epilepsy occurring between 0 and 10 years of age) treated over a lifetime period. Direct costs of pharmacotherapies, management fees and surgeries are included in the analysis to evaluate the annual budget impact in Japan. Results: In the current treatment flow, the number of refractory patients treated with four drugs by non-specialized care were estimated as 8766 and yielded JPY5.8 billion annually. However, in the optimized treatment flow, the number of patients treated with four drugs by non-specialized care significantly decreased and who continued the monotherapy increased. The costs for the four-drug therapy by non-specialized care were eliminated. Hence cost-saving of JPY9.5 billion (-5% of the current treatment flow) in total national expenditures would be expected. Conclusion: This study highlights that any policy decision-making for referral optimization to specialized care in appropriate epilepsy patients would be feasible with a cost-savings or very few budget impacts. However, important information in the decision-making such as transition probability to the next therapy or excuse for sensitive limitations is not available currently. Therefore, further research with reliable data such as big data analysis or a national survey with real-world treatment patterns is needed.

Concept of Combining Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Budget Impact Analysis in Health Care Decision-Making

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roza Ismailovna Yagudina ◽  
Andrey Urievich Kulikov ◽  
Vjacheslav Gennadievich Serpik ◽  
Dzhumber Tengizovich Ugrekhelidze
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact Analysis ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Care Decision

scholarly journals PIN150 Economic VALUE of Treatment and Vaccine Technologies to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cost-Effectiveness and Budget IMPACT Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S568
Author(s):  
W. Padula ◽  
S. Malaviya ◽  
N. Reid ◽  
F. Chingcuanco ◽  
J. Ballreich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Budget Impact Analysis

scholarly journals AB0634 BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS OF BIOLOGICAL THERAPY COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS TREATMENT, IN A FOURTH LEVEL HOSPITAL IN BOGOTA COLOMBIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1612.2-1613
Author(s):  
J. M. Bello-Gualtero ◽  
O. J. Calixto ◽  
G. Salguedo ◽  
Y. M. Chamorro-Melo ◽  
C. A. Camargo Rodríguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Annual Cost ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Biological Therapy ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Disease Diagnosis ◽  
Budget Impact Analysis ◽  
Military Hospital ◽  
Number Of Patients

Background:Spondyloarthritis refers to a family of diseases, of which ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis are responsible for axial impairment. Previously, the only treatment available were NSAIDs, which control activity and stop radiological progression, but at the expense of increased adverse effects, such as cardiovascular risk, dyspepsia and chronic renal failure. For the past 2 decades, biological therapy has been available, which means an increase in care costs.Objectives:The objective of this study is to perform a budget impact analysis of biologic therapy.Methods:To do a budget impact analysis from the perspective of the payer, comparing biological therapy with coventional therapy for the treatment of spondyloarthritis. Demographic characterization of the population attended at the Central Military Hospital. Time horizon from 2012 to 2018, taking the activity count according to the hospital’s billing and the prices of the activities of the state body SISMED. Exchange rates at the end of 2018.Results:The patients attended were 117, mostly men (63, 25%), average age 46, 4 years (SD 13), with disease diagnosis time of 9, 8 years (SD 9, 6). In the budget impact analysis, it is observed that 25% of patients were on DMARDs therapy, 22% with NSAIDs and 96% with biologic therapy. The average year/patient cost with NSAIDs alone would be EUR 381, with DMARDs only EUR 9,318 and, if only biological therapy was used, EUR 423. Within the total number of patients, the average annual cost, including the possibility of combining these drugs, amounted to EUR 5,403Conclusion:Including biological therapy in the care of patients with spondyloarthritis can increase up to 24 times the annual cost per patient. This increase is not only due to higher market value, it also relates to the need for more medical procedures and diagnostic follow-up tests.References:[1]Strömbeck, et al. Cost of Illness from the Public Payers’ Perspective in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis in Rheumatological Care. J Rheumatol 2010;37;2348-2355.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document