budget impact analysis
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

1073
(FIVE YEARS 326)

H-INDEX

18
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 100166
Author(s):  
Mayara Lisboa Bastos ◽  
Olivia Oxlade ◽  
Jonathon R. Campbell ◽  
Eduardo Faerstein ◽  
Dick Menzies ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Septiara Putri ◽  
Ery Setiawan ◽  
Siti Rizny F. Saldi ◽  
Levina Chandra ◽  
Euis Ratna Sari ◽  
...  

Abstract Background This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) compared to CHOP for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Indonesia. Methods We conducted a cost utility analysis using Markov model over a lifetime horizon, from a societal perspective. Clinical evidence was derived from published clinical trials. Direct medical costs were gathered from hospital data. Direct non-medical costs, indirect costs, and utility data were primarily gathered by interviewing the patients. We applied 3% discount rate for both costs and effect. All monetary data are converted into USD (1 USD = IDR 14,000, 2019). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. In addition, from a payer perspective, budget impact analysis was estimated using price reduction scenarios. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of R-CHOP was USD 4,674/LYG and 9,280/QALY. If we refer to the threshold three times the GDP per capita (USD 11,538), R-CHOP could thus be determined as a cost-effective therapy. Its significant health benefit has contributed to the considerable ICER result. Although the R-CHOP has been considered a cost-effective intervention, the financial consequence of R-CHOP if remain in benefit package under National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Indonesia is considerably substantial, approximately USD 66 million with 75% price reduction scenario. Conclusions As a favorable treatment for DLBCL, R-CHOP ensures value for money in Indonesia. Budget impact analysis provides results which can be used as further consideration for decision-makers in matters related to benefit packages.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 150-159
Author(s):  
Martín Romero ◽  
David-Steven Góngora ◽  
Martha-Lucia Caicedo ◽  
Damia Benchabane ◽  
Juan-Guillermo Lopez

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 160-168
Author(s):  
Osvaldo Ulises Garay ◽  
Joaquín Maritano Furcada ◽  
Francisco Ayerbe ◽  
Ramiro A. Pena Requejo Rave ◽  
Silvio Alejandro Tatti

2021 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 727-729
Author(s):  
Patrick DeMartino ◽  
Meredith B. Haag ◽  
Alyssa R. Hersh ◽  
Aaron B. Caughey ◽  
Joshua A. Roth

2021 ◽  
pp. ejhpharm-2021-002955
Author(s):  
Miguel Angel Calleja ◽  
Joan Albanell ◽  
Enrique Aranda ◽  
Jesús García-Foncillas ◽  
Anna Feliu ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zejun Luo ◽  
Zhen Ruan ◽  
Dongning Yao ◽  
Carolina Oi Lam Ung ◽  
Yunfeng Lai ◽  
...  

Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is an economic assessment that estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new intervention. BIA is used to make informed reimbursement decisions, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).Objectives: We systematically reviewed BIA studies associated with anti-diabetic drugs and assessed the extent to which international BIA guidelines were followed in these studies.Methods: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data knowledge Service platform from database inception to June 30, 2021. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for assessing BIAs. We extracted and compared the study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force to evaluate the guideline compliance of the included BIA.Results: A total of eighteen studies on the BIA for anti-diabetic drugs were identified. More than half studies were from developed countries. Seventeen studies were based on model and one study was based on real-world data. Overall, analysis considered a payer perspective, reported potential budget impacts over 1–5 years. Assumptions were mainly made about target population size, market share uptake of new interventions, and scope of cost. The data used for analysis varied among studies and was rarely justified. Model validation and sensitivity analysis were lacking in the current BIA studies. Rebate analysis was conducted in a few studies to explore the price discount that was required for new interventions to demonstrate cost equivalence to comparators.Conclusion: Existing studies evaluating budget impact for anti-diabetic drugs vary greatly in methodology, some of which showed low compliance to good practice guidelines. In order for the BIA to be useful for assisting in health plan decision-making, it is important for future studies to optimize compliance to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on BIA. Model validation and sensitivity analysis should also be improved in future BIA studies. Continued improvement of BIA using real-world data is necessary to ensure high-quality analyses and to provide reliable results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document