Methods and Practical Considerations for Conducting Budget Impact Analysis for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions.

Xuanqian Xie, Jennifer Guo, Alexis K Schaink, Kamilla Guliyeva, Chunmei Li, Wendy J Ungar
Author Information
  1. Xuanqian Xie: Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada. shawn.xie@ontariohealth.ca. ORCID
  2. Jennifer Guo: Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.
  3. Alexis K Schaink: Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.
  4. Kamilla Guliyeva: Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada. ORCID
  5. Chunmei Li: Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.
  6. Wendy J Ungar: Program of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) can be conducted at the national, provincial, or hospital level. Although provincial and hospital-based HTAs often focus on non-pharmaceutical interventions, budget impact analysis (BIA) methods for non-pharmaceutical interventions have received less attention in the literature.
METHODS: We reviewed HTAs of non-pharmaceutical interventions published since 2015 by a Canadian provincial HTA agency, evaluating the characteristics and challenges of conducting a BIA.
RESULTS: We summarized the unique characteristics of BIAs for different categories of interventions, including surgery and other procedures, diagnostic or screening tests, therapeutic programs, and digital health technologies. We then discussed specific methodological and practical considerations for conducting a BIA of a surgical or other hospital-based procedure. Critical points for BIA methods include the following: (1) when estimating the size of a target population, healthcare system capacity must be accounted for, and historical volumes may offer more realistic figures than prevalence and incidence rates; (2) factors that affect the uptake of a new intervention include guideline recommendations, labor and infrastructure requirements for implementation, and the target population size; (3) when interpreting a budget impact that shows cost savings, analysts must address where the savings are generated from and whether they can be reallocated. Some of the considerations discussed may also apply to HTAs of pharmaceuticals.
CONCLUSIONS: When conducting a BIA of a non-pharmaceutical intervention, addressing these methodological considerations may help in better predicting the financial impact of the new intervention for the public payer and guide appropriate budget allocation for healthcare system planning.

References

  1. Mauskopf J, Earnshaw SR, Brogan A, et al. Budget-impact analysis of Health Care Interventions: a practical guide. Cham: Adis; 2017. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50482-7]
  2. 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]
  3. Foroutan N, Tarride JE, Xie F, et al. A methodological review of national and transnational pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:821���54. [DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S178825]
  4. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (in Canada). Budget impact analysis guidelines: guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analysis for submission to public drug plans in Canada. 2nd ed. 2020. 48 p.
  5. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, 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(5):336���47. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x]
  6. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, 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(1):5���14. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291]
  7. 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]
  8. Ontario Health. Journal: Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. Toronto: King���s Printer for Ontario. Available from: https://www.hqontario.ca/Evidence-to-Improve-Care/Health-Technology-Assessment/Journal-Ontario-Health-Technology-Assessment-Series .
  9. Reckers-Droog V, Enzing J, Brouwer W. The role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions on health technologies in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2024;25(8):1449���59. [DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01673-3]
  10. Schaefer R, Hernandez D, Barnighausen T, et al. Health Technology Assessment-Informed Decision Making by the Federal Joint Committee/institute for quality and efficiency in health care in Germany and the national institute for health and care excellence in England: the role of budget impact. Value Health. 2023;26(7):1032���44. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.02.018]
  11. Mauskopf J, Chirila C, Masaquel C, et al. Relationship between financial impact and coverage of drugs in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(1):92���100. [DOI: 10.1017/S0266462312000724]
  12. Mauskopf J, Chirila C, Birt J, et al. Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: have they impacted the National Health Service budget? Health Policy. 2013;110(1):49���59. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.017]
  13. Antonanzas F, Terkola R, Overton PM, et al. Defining and measuring the affordability of new medicines: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(8):777���91. [DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0514-4]
  14. Rachev B, Uyei J, Singh R, et al. Stakeholder point of view on prescription drug affordability���a systematic literature review and content analysis. Health Policy. 2021;125(9):1158���65. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.06.013]
  15. Martin S, Lomas J, Claxton K, et al. How effective is marginal healthcare expenditure? New evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):885���903. [DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00663-3]
  16. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Potential Budget Impact Threshold Updated for 2024-2025. Available from: https://icer.org/our-approach/methods-process/value-assessment-framework/ .
  17. Government of Ontario (Canada). Drug funding review and approval process: King���s Printer for Ontario; [updated July 17, 2024]. Available from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/drug-funding-review-and-approval-process .
  18. Ontario Health. Use of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and N-Terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) as diagnostic tests in adults with suspected heart failure: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2021;21(2):1���125.
  19. Health Quality Ontario. Home-based subcutaneous infusion of immunoglobulin for primary and secondary immunodeficiencies: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017;17(16):1���86.
  20. Ontario Health. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated mitral or tricuspid bioprosthetic valves: a heath technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2022;22(1):1���87.
  21. Galazka-Sobotka M, Kowalska-Bobko I, Lach K, et al. Recommendations for the implementation of hospital based HTA in Poland: lessons learned from international experience. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11: 594644. [DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.594644]
  22. Martin T, Guercio A, Besseau H, et al. Hospital-based health technology assessment of innovative medical devices: insights from a nationwide survey in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;39(1): e58. [DOI: 10.1017/S0266462323000521]
  23. Gagnon MP. Hospital-based health technology assessment: developments to date. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):819���24. [DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0185-3]
  24. Ronquillo Y, Meyers A, Korvek SJ. Digital Health. 2023 May 1. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
  25. Financial Accountability Office of Ontario. Ontario Health Sector: 2023 Budget Spending Plan Review. Toronto (ON): The Agency; 2023. 32 p.
  26. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  27. Kim DD, Silver MC, Kunst N, et al. Perspective and costing in cost-effectiveness analysis, 1974���2018. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(10):1135���45. [DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2]
  28. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th ed. Ottawa (ON): The Agency; 2017. 76 p.
  29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 3rd ed. London: The Institute; 2012.
  30. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Budget Impact Analysis Washington DC2021 [updated March 19, 2021]. Available from: https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?id=budget-impact-analysis
  31. Xie X, Gajic-Veljanoski O, Falk L, et al. Challenges in health technology assessments of genetic tests. J Hosp Manag Health Policy. 2020;4(27):1���10.
  32. Canadian Patient Cost Database metadata [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): The Institute. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/en/canadian-patient-cost-database-metadata .
  33. Wodchis WP, Bushmeneva K, Nikitovic M, et al. Guidelines on person-level costing using administrative databases in Ontario. Working Paper Series. Toronto: Health System Performance Research Network; 2013. 71 p.
  34. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Understanding variability in the cost of a standard hospital stay. Ottawa: The Institute; 2017. 90 p.
  35. Prinja S, Chugh Y, Rajsekar K, et al. National methodological guidelines to conduct budget impact analysis for health technology assessment in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):811���23. [DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00668-y]
  36. Chugh Y, De Francesco M, Prinja S. Systematic literature review of guidelines on budget impact analysis for health technology assessment. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):825���38. [DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00652-6]
  37. Baumann A, Wyss K. The shift from inpatient care to outpatient care in Switzerland since 2017: policy processes and the role of evidence. Health Policy. 2021;125(4):512���9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.01.012]
  38. Ontario Health. Nonthermal endovenous procedures for varicose veins: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2021;21(8):1���188.
  39. Ontario Health. Level 2 polysomnography for the diagnosis of sleep disorders: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2024;24(7):1���157.
  40. Health Quality Ontario. Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016;16(4):1���79. [>PMCID: ]
  41. Cave E. Selecting treatment options and choosing between them: delineating patient and professional autonomy in shared decision-making. Health Care Anal. 2020;28(1):4���24. [DOI: 10.1007/s10728-019-00384-8]
  42. Ontario Health. Molecular testing for thyroid nodules of indeterminate cytology: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2022;22(2):1���111.
  43. Ontario Health. Mechanical thrombectomy for acute and subacute blocked arteries and veins in the lower limbs: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2023;23(1):1���244.
  44. The Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the Budget Impact Analysis of Health Technologies in Ireland. The institute; 2018. 50 p.
  45. Institut national d���excellence en sant�� et en services sociaux (INESSS). La r����ducation p��rin��ale et pelvienne pour la pr��vention et le traitement des dysfonctions du plancher pelvien. Volet 1 ��� Incontinence urinaire. Avis r��dig�� par St��phanie Roberge, Cathy Gosselin, Marilyn Fortin et Am��lie Rousseau. Qu��bec, QC : INESSS; 2022. 121 p.
  46. Institut national d���excellence en sant�� et en services sociaux (INESSS). La r����ducation p��rin��ale et pelvienne pour la pr��vention et le traitement des dysfonctions du plancher pelvien ��� Volet 2 ��� Dysfonction anorectale, prolapsus des organes pelviens et douleurs p��rin��ales chez la femme. Avis r��dig�� par St��phanie Roberge, Cathy Gosselin, Marilyn Fortin, Am��lie Rousseau et Rania Saidi. Qu��bec, QC : INESSS; 2023. 116 p.

MeSH Term

Budgets
Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Humans
Canada
Cost-Benefit Analysis

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0BIAnon-pharmaceuticalinterventionsprovincialHTAsbudgetimpactconductingconsiderationsmayinterventionHTAcanhospital-basedmethodscharacteristicsdiscussedmethodologicalincludesizetargetpopulationhealthcaresystemmustnewsavingsBACKGROUND:HealthtechnologyassessmentconductednationalhospitallevelAlthoughoftenfocusanalysisreceivedlessattentionliteratureMETHODS:reviewedpublishedsince2015CanadianagencyevaluatingchallengesRESULTS:summarizeduniqueBIAsdifferentcategoriesincludingsurgeryproceduresdiagnosticscreeningteststherapeuticprogramsdigitalhealthtechnologiesspecificpracticalsurgicalprocedureCriticalpointsfollowing:1estimatingcapacityaccountedhistoricalvolumesofferrealisticfiguresprevalenceincidencerates2factorsaffectuptakeguidelinerecommendationslaborinfrastructurerequirementsimplementation3interpretingshowscostanalystsaddressgeneratedwhetherreallocatedalsoapplypharmaceuticalsCONCLUSIONS:addressinghelpbetterpredictingfinancialpublicpayerguideappropriateallocationplanningMethodsPracticalConsiderationsConductingBudgetImpactAnalysisNon-PharmaceuticalInterventions

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.