A critical systematic review of budget impact analyses on drugs in the EU countries

Pharmacoeconomic Aspects of Diabetes Mellitus: Outcomes and Analysis of Health Benefits Approach

Pharmacoeconomics is an important tool for investigating and restructuring healthcare policies. In India, recent statistical studies have shown that the number of diabetic patients is rapidly increasing in the rural, middle and upper-class settings. The aim of this review is to call attention towards the need to carry out pharmacoeconomic studies for diabetes mellitus and highlight the outcome of these studies on healthcare. A well-structured literature search from PubMed, Embase, Springer, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane was done. Studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various anti-diabetic agents for type 2 diabetes were eligible for inclusion in the analysis and review. Two independent reviewers sequentially assessed the titles, abstracts, and full articles to select studies that met the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for data abstraction. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through consensus. By employing search terms such as pharmacoeconomics, diabetes mellitus, cost-effective analysis, cost minimization analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis, a total of 194 papers were gathered. Out of these, 110 papers were selected as they aligned with the defined search criteria and underwent the removal of duplicate entries. This review outlined four basic pharmacoeconomic studies carried out on diabetes mellitus. It gave a direction that early detection, patient counseling, personalized medication, appropriate screening intervals, and early start of pharmacotherapy proved to be a cost-effective as well as health benefits approach.

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

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test (official) evaluation criteria including the potential role of budget impact (BI) on health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes published by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss [GBA]) and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]) in Germany as well as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England.

METHODS

Data were extracted from all publicly available GBA decisions and IQWiG assessments as well as NICE single technology appraisals between January 2011 and June 2018, and information with regard to evaluation criteria used by these agencies was collected. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to estimate the effect of the BI on the HTA outcomes while controlling for criteria used by GBA/IQWiG and NICE.

RESULTS

NICE recommendations are largely driven by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and, if applicable, by end-of-life criteria (P < .01). While IQWiG assessments are significantly affected by the availability of randomized controlled trials and patient-relevant endpoints (P < .01), GBA appraisals primarily focus on endpoints (P < .01). The BI correlated with NICE single technology appraisals (inverted-U relationship, P < .1) and IQWiG recommendations (increasing linear relationship, P < .05), but not with GBA decisions (P > .1). Nevertheless, given that IQWiG assessments seem to be more rigorous than GBA appraisals regarding the consideration of evidence-based evaluation criteria, decisions by GBA might be negatively associated with the BI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reveal that GBA/IQWiG and NICE follow their official evaluation criteria consistently. After controlling for all significant variables, the BI seems to have an (independent) effect on HTA outcomes as well.

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations and Budget Impact Analyses to Inform Healthcare Decision-Making in Central America

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the quality, quantity and disease areas analysed by health economic research that inform healthcare decision-making in Central America. This study aimed to review the existing health economic evaluations (HEEs) and budget impact analyses (BIAs) evidence in Central America based on scope and reporting quality.

METHODS

HEEs and BIAs published from 2000 to April 2021 were searched in five electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature), EconLIT and OVID Global Health. Two reviewers assessed titles, abstracts and full texts of studies for eligibility. The quality appraisal for the reporting was based on La Torre and colleagues' version of the Drummond checklist and the ISPOR good practices for BIA. For each country, we correlated the number of studies by disease area with their respective burden of disease to identify under-researched health areas.

RESULTS

102 publications were eligible for this review. Ninety-four publications reported a HEE, six publications reported a BIA, and two studies reported both a HEE and a BIA. Costa Rica had the highest number of publications (n = 28, 27.5%), followed by Guatemala (n = 25, 24.5%). Cancer and respiratory infections were the most common types of disease studied. Diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney diseases, and mental disorders were under-researched relative to their disease burden in most of the countries. The overall mean quality reporting score for HEE and BIA studies were 71/119 points (60%) and 7/10 points (70%), respectively; however, these assessments were made on different scales.

CONCLUSION

In Central America, health economic research is sparse and is considered as suboptimal quality for reporting. The findings reported information useful to other low- and middle-income countries with similar advances in the application of economics to promote health policy decision-making.

Adoption of new therapies in the treatment of Hepatitis: a verification of the accuracy of budget impact analysis to guide investment decisions

OBJECTIVES

While there are good Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) guidelines, studies still register potential bias. To do this, we compared the results between theoretical and real-world evidence (RWE) expenditures for medicines for Hepatitis C: boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR). While both are not currently recommended in treatment guidelines following recent developments, this is an emblematic case because for 4 years these medicines consumed considerable resources.

METHODS

Theoretical results and RWE expenditures were compared regarding the incorporation of BOC and TVR in 2013-2014 into the Brazilian Public Health System. Theoretical values were extracted from Commission for Technology Incorporation Report and RWE expenditures were extracted from the administrative data records using deterministic-probabilistic linkage.

RESULTS

The estimated number of patients treated (BOC+TVR) was 13,012 versus 7,641 (real). The estimated purchase price for BOC was US$6.20 versus US$11.07 (real) and for TVR was US$42.21 versus US$84.09 (average/real). The estimated budget impact was US$285.16 million versus US$128.58 million (real).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates appreciable divergence (US$156.58 million) between the theoretical budget impact and RWE expenditures due to underestimated purchase prices and overestimated populations. The greater the degree of accuracy the more reliable and usable BIAs become for decision-making.

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

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.

Budget impact analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low, intermediate, and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia

AIMS

A budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis among patients of low, intermediate, and high surgical risk from the perspective of the public and private sectors in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed with six states to calculate the budget impact from time of either TAVR or SAVR intervention up to 5 years. We compared the budget effects of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), major/disabling stroke (MDS), and surgical site infections (SSI). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed on cost and probability inputs.

RESULTS

Analysis of the base case parameters suggests TAVR vs. SAVR is budget saving among intermediate- and high-risk patients at 5 years. TAVR vs. SAVR for low surgical risk reaches budget neutrality at 5 years. TAVR is associated with higher costs for PPI and budget savings for MDS, AF, and SSI. TAVR also results in savings for non-device costs due to fewer human resource uses and shorter procedure durations. Similarly, TAVR is associated with cost savings due to shorter hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU stays. The OWSA consistently revealed that SAVR non-device theater costs were the leading cost driver across all surgical risk levels.

LIMITATIONS

This is the first budget impact analysis of its kind in Saudi Arabia and future research is needed on costing TAVR and SAVR procedures, the economic impact of SSI, and corroborating estimates for the public and private sectors.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers, providers, and policymakers increasingly turn to results of BIA to inform technologies affordability decisions. TAVR with SAPIEN 3 appears to generate savings vs. SAVR from a budget impact perspective across various surgical risk levels in Saudi Arabia.

Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

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.

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

Background: With the increasing disease burden of cancer worldwide, more and more anticancer drugs have been approved in many countries, and the results of budget impact analyses (BIAs) have become important evidence for related reimbursement decisions.

Objectives: We systematically reviewed whether BIAs for anticancer drugs consider the scope of costs rationally and compared the results of different cost scopes to provide suggestions for future analyses and decision-making.

Methods: Eligible BIAs published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2016 to 2021 were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted 15 terms from the included studies and analyzed how they considered the scope of costs. In addition, a budget impact model was developed for the introduction of geptanolimab to China's National Reimbursement Drug List to enable a comparison of two cost-scope scenarios.

Results: A total of 29 studies were included in the systematic review. All 29 studies considered the costs of anticancer drugs, and 25 (86%) also considered condition-related costs, but only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs. In the comparative study, the predicted budget impacts from 2022 to 2024 were significantly impacted by subsequent treatment costs, with annual differences between the two cost-scope scenarios of $39,546,664, $65,866,161, and $86,577,386, respectively.

Conclusions: The scope of costs considered in some existing BIAs for anticancer drugs are not rational. The variations between different cost scopes in terms of budget impact were significant. Thus, BIAs for anticancer drugs should consider a rational scope of costs that adheres to BIA guidelines. Researchers and decision-makers should pay more attention to the scope of costs to achieve better-quality BIAs for anticancer drugs and enhance reimbursement decision-making.

Systematic Literature Review of Guidelines on Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to review the recommendations for the conduct of a budget impact analysis in national or organisational guidelines globally.

METHODS

We searched several databases including MELDINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, HTA Database (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment), Econlit and IDEAS Database (RePEc, Research Papers in Economics). The OVID platform was used to run the search in all databases simultaneously. In addition, a search of the grey literature was also conducted. The timeframe was set from 2000 to 2020 with language of publication restricted to English.

RESULTS

A total of 13 publications were selected. All the countries where financing of health is predominantly tax funded with public provisioning recommend a healthcare payer (government) perspective. However, countries where a healthcare payer includes a mix of federal government, communities, hospital authorities and patient communities recommend a complementary analysis with a wider societal perspective. While four guidelines prefer a simple cost calculator for costing, the rest rely on a decision modelling approach. None of the guidelines recommend discounting except the Polish guidelines, which recommend discounting at 5%. Only two countries, Belgium and Poland, mention that indirect costs, if significant, should be included in addition to direct costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative cross-country analysis shows that a standard set of recommendations cannot be directly useful for all as there are contextual differences. Thus, budget impact analysis guidelines must be carefully contextualised in the policy environment of a country so as to reflect the dynamics of health systems.

Assessing the Accuracy of Sales Forecasts Submitted by Pharmaceutical Companies Applying for Reimbursement in Austria

Objectives: Reimbursement decisions on new medicines require an assessment of their value. In Austria, when applying for reimbursement of new medicines, pharmaceutical companies are also obliged to submit forecasts of future sales. We systematically examined the accuracy of these pharmaceutical sales forecasts and hence the usefulness of these forecasts for reimbursement evaluations. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed reimbursement applications of 102 new drugs submitted between 2005 and 2014, which were accepted for reimbursement outside of hospitals, and for which actual reimbursed sales were available for at least 3 years. The main outcome variable was the accuracy ratio, defined as the ratio of forecasted sales submitted by pharmaceutical companies when applying for reimbursement to actual sales from reimbursement data. Results: The median accuracy ratio [95% confidence interval] was 1.33 [1.03; 1.74, range 0.15–37.5], corresponding to a median overestimation of actual sales by 33%. Forecasts of actual sales for 55.9% of all examined products either overestimated actual sales by more than 100% or underestimated them by more than 50%. The accuracy of sales forecasts did not show systematic change over the analyzed decade nor was it discernibly influenced by reimbursement status (restricted or unrestricted), the degree of therapeutic benefit, or the therapeutic area of the pharmaceutical product. Sales forecasts of drugs with a higher degree of innovation and those within a dynamic market tended to be slightly more accurate. Conclusions: The majority of sales forecasts provided by applicants for reimbursement evaluations in Austria were highly inaccurate and were on average too optimistic. This is in line with published results for other jurisdictions and highlights the need for caution when using such forecasts for reimbursement procedures.

Budget impact analysis of medicines: estimated values versus real-world evidence and the implications

Objectives: Budget Impact Analyses (BIA) of medicines helps managers in promoting health systems' sustainability when assessing the role and value of new medicines. However, it is not clear whether BIAs typically underestimate or overestimate the impact on real-world budgets. This retroactive analysis seeks to compare estimated values obtained by a BIA and Real-World Evidence (RWE) to guide discussions.Methods: The estimated values were obtained through a BIA concerning the incorporation of adalimumab for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis into the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) carried out retroactively and per international guidelines. RWE data was extracted from SUS computerized systems. We subsequently compared the number of treatments, costs, and Incremental Budget Impact (IBI).Results - The total number of treatments was underestimated by 10% (6,243) and the total expenditure was overestimated by 463% (US$ 4.7 billion). In five years, the total difference between the estimated values and real IBI reached US$ 1.1 billion. A current expenditure of US$ 1.0 was observed for every US$ 5.60 of estimated expenditure.Conclusion - The higher estimates from the BIA might cause decision makers to be more cautious with the introduction of a new medicine to reduce the opportunity costs for other interventions.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.

A systematic review of the budget impact analyses for antitumor drugs of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Budget impact analyses (BIAs) are used for reimbursement decisions and drug access medical insurance, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed BIAs for antitumor drugs of lung cancer to provide reference for high-value drug budget impact analyses and decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform from 2010 to 2019. The methodological indicators and result information of the budget impact analyses were extracted and evaluated for quality.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies on the budget impact for antitumor drugs of lung cancer were included, and the overall quality was good. Half of studies were from developed countries. Nine of the studies were designed using the BIA cost calculation model, and two were simulated using the Markov model Monte Carlo model. From all studies, only 14.3% reported model validation. The budget impact results of the same drug in different countries were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Included studies evaluating budget impact analyses for anti-tumor drugs of lung cancer showed variability in the methodological framework for BIAs. The budget impact analyses of high-value drugs need to be more stringent to ensure the accuracy of the parameters, and should provide reliable results based on real data to decision-making departments, which should carefully consider access to lung cancer drugs.

A novel method for predicting the budget impact of innovative medicines: validation study for oncolytics

BACKGROUND

High budget impact (BI) estimates of new drugs have led to decision-making challenges potentially resulting in restrictions in patient access. However, current BI predictions are rather inaccurate and short term. We therefore developed a new approach for BI prediction. Here, we describe the validation of our BI prediction approach using oncology drugs as a case study.

METHODS

We used Dutch population-level data to estimate BI where BI is defined as list price multiplied by volume. We included drugs in the antineoplastic agents ATC category which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) considered a New Active Substance and received EMA marketing authorization (MA) between 2000 and 2017. A mixed-effects model was used for prediction and included tumor site, orphan, first in class or conditional approval designation as covariates. Data from 2000 to 2012 were the training set. BI was predicted monthly from 0 to 45 months after MA. Cross-validation was performed using a rolling forecasting origin with e^|Ln(observed BI/predicted BI)| as outcome.

RESULTS

The training set and validation set included 25 and 44 products, respectively. Mean error, composed of all validation outcomes, was 2.94 (median 1.57). Errors are higher with less available data and at more future predictions. Highest errors occur without any prior data. From 10 months onward, error remains constant.

CONCLUSIONS

The validation shows that the method can relatively accurately predict BI. For payers or policymakers, this approach can yield a valuable addition to current BI predictions due to its ease of use, independence of indications and ability to update predictions to the most recent data.

Budget Impact of Switching to Biosimilar Trastuzumab (CT-P6) for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Gastric Cancer in 28 European Countries

BACKGROUND

As the economic burden of treating cancer patients has been soaring in European countries, performing a budget impact analysis is becoming one of the requirements for payers' application dossiers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of introducing the biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) from the payer's perspective and to determine the number of additional patients who could be treated with resulting savings in 28 European countries.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the financial impact of switching from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in the treatment of early and metastatic breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer with a time horizon of 1-5 years. Budgetary savings and the number of patients potentially affected were measured based on epidemiological and sales volume data. The base-case analysis assumed that the price of CT-P6 is 70% of the originator price, the switching rate of originator to CT-P6 in the first year is 20%, and the annual growth in the switching rate for each subsequent year is 5%.

RESULTS

For analyses using the base-case scenario following CT-P6 introduction, the total estimated budgetary savings over a 5-year period (depending on the scenario) ranged from €1.13 billion to €2.27 billion based on epidemiological data, or from €0.91 billion to €1.82 billion based on sales volume data. In the first year only, the projected budgetary savings ranged from €58 million to €136 million, and the number of additional patients who could be treated using the savings ranged from 3503 to 7078 by sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The conducted budget impact analysis assessing a switch from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in 28 European countries indicates that budget savings could be between €0.91 billion and €2.27 billion over the next 5 years. These savings could be used to help improve patient access to local biologics in their respective countries while simultaneously strengthening the overall public health landscape across the European Union.

Affordability of oncology drugs: accuracy of budget impact estimations

Background: In many countries, Budget Impact (BI) informs reimbursement decisions. Evidence has shown that decision-makers have restricted access based on high BI estimates but studies show that BI estimates are often inaccurate. Objective: To assess the accuracy of BI estimations used for informing access decisions on oncology drugs in the Netherlands. Study Design: Oncology products for which European Medicines Agency Marketing Authorisation was granted between 1-1-2000 and 1-10-2017 were selected. Observed BI data were provided by FarmInform. BI estimates were extracted from the reimbursement dossiers of the Dutch Healthcare Institute. Products without an estimated BI in the reimbursement dossier were excluded. Accuracy is defined as the ratio observed BI/estimated BI. Setting: General community, the Netherlands. Results: Ten products were included in the base case analysis. Mean accuracy was 0.64 and observed BI deviated by more than 40% and 100% from the estimated BI for 4 and 5 products, respectively. For all products together, €141 million BI was estimated and €82 million BI was observed, a €59 million difference. Conclusions: The findings indicate that BI estimates for oncology drugs in the Netherlands are inaccurate. The role and use of BI in reimbursement decisions for these potentially life-saving drugs should therefore be considered carefully, as well as BI estimation methodology.

Economic Impact of Reducing Inappropriate Inhaled Corticosteroids Use in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: ISPOR's Guidance on Budget Impact in Practice

OBJECTIVES

To assess the budget impact of restricting inappropriate inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) use according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)-guidelines indication for ICS use in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-population, taking The Netherlands as a reference case.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed and closely aligned with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research best-practice guidelines. The model estimates the impact of pharmacologic COPD maintenance treatments on clinical events (exacerbations and pneumonias) and associated healthcare utilization and costs. The current treatment mix included all maintenance treatments including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), LABA/ICS, LABA/LAMA, and triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS). We modeled a situation where 25% of patients would use ICS-containing treatments and compared this to the current Dutch situation with 60% ICS use. A 5-year time horizon with a Dutch healthcare payer's perspective was used. In sensitivity analyses, a range of values for absolute ICS reduction (20%-40%), relative risks of exacerbations and pneumonia events, and other input parameters were explored.

RESULTS

Over a period of 5 years, the new treatment mix with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guideline recommended ICS, and LABA/LAMA use resulted in potential avoidance of 17 405 exacerbations and 11 984 pneumonias and accompanied savings of €84 million in the base-case scenario. Savings were consistent in various sensitivity analyses, indicating cost savings between €30 and €200 million.

CONCLUSION

Reducing inappropriate ICS use and increasing use of LABA/LAMA in COPD patients could result in a reduction of exacerbations and pneumonias, corresponding with a reduction in total costs for COPD in The Netherlands.

Accuracy of budget impact estimations and impact on patient access: a hepatitis C case study

BACKGROUND

High budget impact (BI) estimates of new drugs limit access to patients due to concerns regarding affordability and displacement effects. The accuracy and methodological quality of BI analyses are often low, potentially mis-informing reimbursement decision making. Using hepatitis C as a case study, we aim to quantify the accuracy of the BI predictions used in Dutch reimbursement decision-making and to characterize the influence of market-dynamics on actual BI.

METHODS

We selected hepatitis C direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) that were introduced in the Netherlands between January 2014 and March 2018. Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN) BI estimates were derived from the reimbursement dossiers. Actual Dutch BI data were provided by FarmInform. BI prediction accuracy was assessed by comparing the ZIN BI estimates with the actual BI data.

RESULTS

Actual BI, from 1 Jan 2014 to 1 March 2018, was €248 million whilst the BI estimates ranged from €388-€510 million. The latter figure represents the estimated BI for the reimbursement scenario that was adopted, implying a €275 million overestimation. Absent incorporation of timing of regulatory decisions and inadequate correction for the introduction of new products were main drivers of BI overestimation, as well as uncertainty regarding the patient population size and the impact of the final reimbursement decision.

DISCUSSION

BI in reimbursement dossiers largely overestimated actual BI of hepatitis C DAAs. When BI analysis is performed according to existing guidelines, the resulting more accurate BI estimates may lead to better informed reimbursement decisions.

Budget Impact Analysis of Cancer Screening: A Methodological Review

BACKGROUND

Budget impact analyses (BIAs) describe changes in intervention- and disease-related costs of new technologies. Evidence on the quality of BIAs for cancer screening is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed the literature and methods to assess how closely BIA guidelines are followed when BIAs are performed for cancer-screening programs.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York), and CEA registry of the Tufts Medical Center.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible studies were BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs published in English, 2010-2018.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

Standardized evidence tables were generated to extract and compare study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified evaluating screening for breast (5), colorectal (6), cervical (3), lung (1), prostate (3), and skin (1) cancers. Model designs included decision-analytic models (13) and simple cost calculators (6). From all studies, only 53% reported costs for a minimum of 3 years, 58% compared to a mix of screening options, 42% reported model validation, and 37% reported uncertainty analysis for participation rates. The quality of studies appeared to be independent of cancer site.

LIMITATIONS

"Gray" literature was not searched, misinterpretation is possible due to limited information in publications, and focus was on international methodological guidelines rather than regional guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights considerable variability in the extent to which BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs followed recommended guidelines. The annual budget impact at least over the next 3-5 years should be estimated. Validation and uncertainty analysis should always be conducted. Continued dissemination efforts of existing best-practice guidelines are necessary to ensure high-quality analyses.

Validating a Budget Impact Model Using Payer Insight and Claims Data: A Framework and Case Study

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of studies validating budget impact models. The lack of such studies may contribute to the underuse of budget impact models by payers in formulary decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the face validity, internal verification, and predictive validity of a previously published model that assessed the budgetary impact of antidiabetic formulary changes.

METHODS

4 experts with diverse backgrounds were selected and asked questions regarding the face validity of the structure/conceptual model, input data, and results from the budget impact model. To assess internal verification, structured "walk-throughs," unit tests, extreme condition tests, traces, replication tests, and double programming techniques were used. The predictive validity of the model was evaluated by comparing the predicted and realized budget using mean absolute scaled error. "Realized" budgetary impact of the formulary changes was calculated by taking the difference between realized budget in the year after the formulary changes and the budget had there been no formulary changes (i.e., the counterfactual). The counterfactual budget was modeled using the best fit autoregressive integrated moving average model.

RESULTS

When assessing the face validity of the model, the 4 experts brought up issues such as how to incorporate other health insurance, recent policy changes, cost inflation, and potential impacts on insulin use. The 6 internal verification techniques caught mistakes in equations, missing data, and misclassified data. The realized budget was found to be lower than the predicted budget, with 13% error and an absolute scaled error of 2.60. After removing the model assumption that past utilization trends would continue, the model's predictive accuracy improved (the absolute scaled error dropped below 1 to 0.48). The "realized" budgetary impact was found to be greater than the predicted budgetary impact, largely because of lower-than-expected utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The budget impact model overpredicted utilization in the year after the formulary changes. Discoveries through the validation process improved the accuracy and transparency of the model.

DISCLOSURES

This project was supported by grant number F32HS024857 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of AHRQ. AHRQ had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or design to submit the manuscript for publication. The findings discussed in this manuscript represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the Defense Health Agency, nor the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Hung reports a grant from the AHRQ, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from CVS Health and BlueCross BlueShield Association, outside the submitted work. Mullins reports grants and personal fees from Bayer and Pfizer and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen/J&J, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis, outside the submitted work. Mullins, Slejko, and Shaya are employed by the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. Haines and Lugo have nothing to disclose. Part of this content was previously presented as a poster at the 2017 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO, and as poster and oral presentations at the 2017 AMCP Nexus Meeting; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX. Part of this content was published as Hung's PhD dissertation.

Using a Budget Impact Model Framework to Evaluate Antidiabetic Formulary Changes and Utilization Management Tools

BACKGROUND

Traditional budget impact models predict the financial consequences of a new drug entering the market. This study provides an example of applying the budget impact framework to a new research question of interest to managed care organizations-what is the budget impact of our formulary and utilization management (UM) policy changes?

OBJECTIVE

To predict the 3-year annual budgetary impact of TRICARE's antidiabetic formulary and UM policy changes using TRICARE claims data.

METHODS

A budget impact model was built in Microsoft Excel using health plan claims data for a 3-year time horizon. Model outcomes included spending on antidiabetic medications and medications used for side effect treatment. In sensitivity analyses, medical costs from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room visits were also estimated. Model inputs included health plan antidiabetic medication utilization, as well as publicly available drug cost, rebate, dispensing fee, and patient cost-sharing estimates. Type of enrollee and pharmacy were also incorporated into the model. Sensitivity analyses varied estimates for utilization switch rates between preferred and nonpreferred agents, drug costs, rebates, and dispensing fees, as well as predicted impact from implementation delays.

RESULTS

For the 623,827 affected by the formulary and UM policy changes, the model predicted annual savings that increased from $24 million in the first year to $43 million in the third year after the changes. The majority of savings came from drug acquisition costs, as opposed to rebates, copays, and dispensing fees. Sensitivity analyses found savings across all varied parameters and scenarios except an unlikely scenario when 0% of utilization switched from nonpreferred to preferred agents. The model also predicted that the formulary and UM policy changes would lead to $529,439 in savings from medical visit costs in Year 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This budget impact model predicted cost savings from the payer's formulary and UM policy changes.

DISCLOSURES

This project was supported by grant number F32HS024857 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which contracted with the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy to conduct this study. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ, which had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or design to submit the manuscript for publication. The findings discussed in this manuscript represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the Defense Health Agency, nor the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Hung reports a grant from the AHRQ, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from CVS Health and BlueCross BlueShield Association, outside the submitted work. Mullins reports grants and personal fees from Bayer and Pfizer and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen/J&J, Regeneron, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Mullins, Slejko, and Shaya are employed by the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. Haines and Lugo have nothing to disclose. Part of this content was previously presented as a poster at the 2017 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO, and as poster and oral presentations at the 2017 AMCP Nexus Meeting; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX. Part of this content was published as Hung's PhD dissertation.

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

A methodological review of national and transnational pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions

INTRODUCTION

Budget impact analysis (BIA) in health care, sometimes referred to as resource impact, is the financial change in the use of health resources associated with adding a new drug to a formulary or the adoption of a new health technology. Several national and transnational organizations worldwide have updated their BIA guidelines in the past 4 years. The aim of the present review was to provide a comprehensive list of the key recommendations of BIA guidelines from different countries that may be of interest for those who wish to build or to update BIA guidelines.

METHODS

National and transnational BIA guidelines were searched in databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, EconLit, CINAHL, Business Source Premier, HealthSTAR, and the gray literature including regulatory agency websites. Data were reviewed and abstracted based on key elements in a standard BIA model (analytical model structure, input and data sources, and reporting format).

RESULTS

Eight national (Australia, UK, Belgium, Ireland, France, Poland, Brazil, and Canada) and one transnational (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) BIA guidelines were included in this review, and a comprehensive list of BIA recommendations was identified. The review showed that certain recommendations such as patient population assessment, drug-related direct costs, discounting, and disaggregated results were common across the various jurisdictions. BIA guidelines differed from each other in terms of the number and scope of recommendations, the terminology used (eg, the definition of comparators or cost offsets) and the direction of the recommendations (ie, to include or not to include with respect to such items as off-label indications, indirect costs, clinical outcomes, and resource utilization).

CONCLUSION

While there was a common purpose for all of the BIA guidelines that were identified, substantial differences did occur in the specific recommendations. The pharmaceutical financing system structure might explain why guidelines from the UK, Australia, and Canada have more country-specific recommendations. The desire to be consistent with adopted economic evaluation assumptions might be another reason for some observed differences between countries. Further research is required to assess the source of the heterogeneity between BIA recommendations are identified in different guidelines.

The French National Authority for Health (HAS) Guidelines for Conducting Budget Impact Analyses (BIA)

BACKGROUND

Budget impact analysis (BIA) provides short- and medium-term estimates on changes in budgets and health outcomes resulting from the adoption of new health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to present the newly developed French National Authority for Health (HAS) guidelines on budget impact analysis as follows: process, literature review, recommendations and comparisons with other guidelines.

METHODS

The development process of the HAS guidelines included a literature review (search dates: January 2000 to June 2016), a retrospective investigation of BIA previously submitted to HAS, a public consultation, international expert reviews and approval from the HAS Board and the Economic and Public Health Evaluation Committee of HAS.

RESULTS

Documents identified in the literature review included 12 national guidelines, 5 recommendations for good practices developed by national and international society of health economics and 14 methodological publications including recommendations for conducting BIA. Based on its research findings, HAS developed its first BIA guidelines, which include recommendations on the following topics: BIA definition, perspective, populations, time horizon, compared scenarios, budget impact models, costing, discounting, choice of clinical data, reporting of results and uncertainty exploration.

CONCLUSION

It is expected that the HAS BIA guidelines will enhance the usefulness, quality and transparency of BIA submitted by drug manufacturers to HAS. BIA is becoming an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of healthcare interventions in France, which also includes cost-effectiveness analysis and equity of access to healthcare.

Capturing Budget Impact Considerations Within Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Rotavirus Vaccine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and a Proposed Assessment Framework

BACKGROUND

In low- and middle-income countries, budget impact is an important criterion for funding new interventions, particularly for large public health investments such as new vaccines. However, budget impact analyses remain less frequently conducted and less well researched than cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to fill the gap in research on budget impact analyses by assessing (1) the quality of stand-alone budget impact analyses, and (2) the feasibility of extending cost-effectiveness analyses to capture budget impact.

METHODS

We developed a budget impact analysis checklist and scoring system for budget impact analyses, which we then adapted for cost-effectiveness analyses, based on current International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force recommendations. We applied both budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis checklists and scoring systems to examine the extent to which existing economic evaluations provide sufficient evidence about budget impact to enable decision making. We used rotavirus vaccination as an illustrative case in which low- and middle-income countries uptake has been limited despite demonstrated cost effectiveness. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2000 and February 2017. We critically appraised the quality of budget impact analyses, and assessed the extension of cost-effectiveness analyses to provide useful budget impact information.

RESULTS

Six budget impact analyses and 60 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Budget impact analyses adhered to most International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations, with key exceptions being provision of undiscounted financial streams for each budget period and model validation. Most cost-effectiveness analyses could not be extended to provide useful budget impact information; cost-effectiveness analyses also rarely presented undiscounted annual costs, or estimated financial streams during the first years of programme scale-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analyses vastly outnumber budget impact analyses of rotavirus vaccination, despite both being critical for policy decision making. Straightforward changes to the presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses results could facilitate their adaptation into budget impact analyses.

When cost-effective interventions are unaffordable: Integrating cost-effectiveness and budget impact in priority setting for global health programs

Potential cost-effective barriers in cost-effectiveness studies mean that budgetary impact analyses should also be included in post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal projects says Joshua Salomon and colleagues.

Assessing the Value of Biosimilars: A Review of the Role of Budget Impact Analysis

Biosimilar drugs are highly similar to an originator (reference) biologic, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety or efficacy. As biosimilars offer the potential for lower acquisition costs versus the originator biologic, evaluating the economic implications of the introduction of biosimilars is of interest. Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a commonly used methodology. This review of published BIAs of biosimilar fusion proteins and/or monoclonal antibodies identified 12 unique publications (three full papers and nine congress posters). When evaluated alongside professional guidance on conducting BIA, the majority of BIAs identified were generally in line with international recommendations. However, a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles and considerable shortcomings in the publications were identified. Deficiencies included a limited range of cost parameters, a reliance on assumptions for parameters such as uptake and drug pricing, a lack of expert validation, and a limited range of sensitivity analyses that were based on arbitrary ranges. The rationale for the methods employed, limitations of the BIA approach, and instructions for local adaptation often were inadequately discussed. To understand fully the potential economic impact and value of biosimilars, the impact of biosimilar supply, manufacturer-provided supporting services, and price competition should be included in BIAs. Alternative approaches, such as cost minimization, which requires evidence demonstrating similarity to the originator biologic, and those that integrate a range of economic assessment methods, are needed to assess the value of biosimilars.

Evaluating the Treatment Costs for Uncomplicated Malaria at a Public Healthcare Facility in Nigeria and the Implications

BACKGROUND

Accurate information on the facility costs of treatment is essential to enhance decision making and funding for malaria control.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of providing treatment for uncomplicated malaria through a public health facility in Nigeria.

METHODS

Hospital costs were estimated from a provider perspective, applying a standard costing procedure. Capital and recurrent expenditures were estimated using an ingredient approach combined with step-down methodology. Costs attributable to malaria treatment were calculated based on the proportion of malaria cases to total outpatient visits. The costs were calculated in local currency [Naira (N)] and converted to US dollars at the 2013 exchange rate.

RESULTS

Total annual costs of N28.723 million (US$182,953.65) were spent by the facility on the treatment of uncomplicated malaria, at a rate of US$31.49 per case, representing approximately 25% of the hospital's total expenditure in the study year. Personnel accounted for over 82.5% of total expenditure, followed by antimalarial medicines at 6.6%. More than 45% of outpatients visits were for uncomplicated malaria. Changes in personnel costs, drug prices and malaria prevalence significantly impacted on the study results, indicating the need for improved efficiency in the use of hospital resources.

CONCLUSION

Malaria treatment currently consumes a considerable amount of resources in the facility, driven mainly by personnel cost and a high proportion of malaria cases. There is scope for enhanced efficiency to prevent waste and reduce costs to the provider and ultimately the consumer.

Treatment with PEG-IFN and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C, low grade of hepatic fibrosis, genotype 1 and 4 and favorable IFNL3 genotype: A pharmacogenetic prospective study

The new direct-acting antivirals agents (DAAs) rapidly changed the treatment approach in chronic hepatitis C (CHC); however, the interferon (IFN)-free therapies availability is currently different in some countries, due to higher costs of these drugs. Naïve treated patients, who are not eligible for IFN-free therapies, could be selected for standard dual treatment with pegylated (PEG)-IFN and ribavirin (RBV), through IFN lambda 3 gene polymorphisms and fibrosis stage evaluation. Inclusion criteria were: naïve treated CHC patients with GT1 or GT4, without major contraindication to PEG-IFN or RBV, with fibrosis stage F0-F2 and IFNL3 rs8099917/rs12979860 TT/CC genotypes. 65 patients were included in the study. Overall SVR was observed in 50 patients (76.9%); SVR rates among different genotypes were as follows: 15 with GT1a (71.4%), 27 with GT1b (79.4%) and 8 for GT4 (80%). The RBV cutoff at 2weeks of 1800ng/mL, predictor of RVR, was determined (p=0.003; sensibility=60.4%, specificity=88.2%, positive predictive value=88.9%, negative predictive value=100%). In multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with treatment failure were living alone condition (OR=4.302; 95%IC=1.254-16.257; p=0.034) and RBV plasma level <1800ng/mL at 2weeks (OR=4.970; 95%IC=1.405-17.565; p=0.009). Considering a pharmacogenetic-guided approach, dual therapy with PEG-IFN and RBV can be considered a reliable option for patients ineligible for IFN-free treatments, who are motivated and well informed about all the aspects related to PEG-IFN administration.

The Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 in Rheumatology and Cancer: A Budget Impact Analysis in 28 European Countries

Introduction

New biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies are anticipated to bring significant cost savings and increase access to treatment. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 has recently been approved in Europe in all indications held by reference rituximab (RTX), including rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We analyzed the budgetary impact of the introduction of CT-P10 into the European Union (EU) for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer diagnoses, using a budget impact analysis model.

Methods

The model used a base case scenario in which the 1-year uptake of CT-P10 was estimated at 30%, and the cost of CT-P10 was assumed to be 70% of the cost of RTX. A second 1-year scenario was also modeled, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 50% (scenario 2). Finally, 3-year time horizon outcomes were calculated, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 30%, 40%, and 50% in the first, second, and third years, respectively.

Results

In the base case scenario, the introduction of CT-P10 was associated with projected savings of €90.04 million in the first year, which would allow 7531 additional patients to access rituximab treatment. This was equivalent to a 6.4% increase in the number of rituximab-treated patients. In scenario 2, budget savings were €150.10 million, with a total of 12,551 additional patients able to access rituximab, equivalent to a 10.7% increase. Over a 3-year time horizon, projected budget savings were approximately €570 million, equating to 47,695 additional patients able to access rituximab.

Conclusions

The model predicted that the introduction of CT-P10 in the EU will be associated with significant budget savings, the reallocation of which will enable many more patients to access rituximab treatment. This is likely to have a significant impact on health gains at patient and societal levels.

Funding: CELLTRION Healthcare Co., Ltd. sponsored the development and analysis of the budget impact analysis model.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0522-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessment of the Level of Satisfaction and Unmet Data Needs for Specialty Drug Formulary Decisions in the United States

BACKGROUND

Formulary management within a limited budget is critical, especially for specialty drugs, which are used for serious medical conditions and are very expensive. Despite attempts to summarize the pertinent evidence, it is uncertain whether data needs of formulary decision makers for specialty drugs are satisfied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the level of satisfaction of specialty drug formulary decision makers with regards to the strength of current available data sources and unmet needs regarding clinical, economic, and unpublished evidence.

METHODS

This study targeted pharmacists and physicians involved with formulary decision making at health plans or pharmacy benefit management companies at the national, large regional, and local levels. 95 individuals were invited to participate (without compensation) in a 21-item, web-based survey (Qualtrics), which was open from June 14 to July 31, 2014. The responses were coded for descriptive and statistical analysis. Statistical analyses included the Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance, and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Of 95 pharmacists or physicians, 40 respondents initiated the survey, and 33 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 34.7%). Drug formulary decision makers infrequently rated data evidence strength (17.1% "always"). Clinical data evidence strength was rated highest with published randomized controlled trials (RCTs; mean [SD] = 4.06 [0.87] of 5.0), while participant organizations' internal data were rated highest for economic data evidence strength (mean [SD] = 3.91 [1.07] of 5.0). Decision makers rated the highest unmet need as more data generated from head-to-head RCTs (mean [SD] = 2.94 [0.25] of 3.0) and cost-effectiveness analyses (mean [SD] = 2.53 [0.67] of 3.0). The participants believed manufacturers might be in the best position to satisfy their desire for head-to-head RCTs (mean [SD] = 4.31 [1.09] of 5.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a variety of data sources, drug formulary decision makers continue to rely on published RCTs or internal economic analyses as having the strongest evidence strength. The study respondents believed that pharmaceutical manufacturers would be best able to satisfy the greatest clinical data unmet need, that is, head-to-head RCTs in specialty drug formulary decisions.

DISCLOSURES

This study was not funded by any company or pharmaceutical manufacturer. Navarro has worked as a consultant for Biogen, Purdue Pharma, and Novartis and has offered expert testimony on behalf of AstraZeneca. The authors declare no other potential conflicts of interest. Study design was contributed primarily by Navarro, along with Choi. Choi took the lead in data collection and interpretation, assisted by Navarro. Both authors contributed equally to manuscript writing and revision.

OP72 Adherence Of Budget Impact Analyses To Principles Of Good Practice

INTRODUCTION:

Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) is an integral element of a comprehensive Health Technology Assessment. Prior systematic reviews showed significant methodological dissimilarities in BIAs published from 2002 to 2015 (1,2). Aimed to improve the generalisability and transferability of outcomes, a guidance on methods was updated in 2014 (3). The objective of this study was to measure the adherence to Principles of Good Practice of BIAs published after the release of the updated guidelines.

METHODS:

Fifteen features representative of methodological appropriateness were identified from the Principles of Good Practice. A systematic review of the extant literature was conducted to identify BIAs published from January 2015 to December 2016. The adherence of each BIA to the Principles of Good Practice was defined by the number of representative characteristics taken into consideration as a percent of the total.

The full study protocol is available online: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016049287

RESULTS:

A sample of thirty-nine published BIAs were included in the analysis. The mean adherence of BIAs to the Principles of Good Practice was 69 percent (10.4 representative features out of 15). The highest adherence was 87 percent, while the lowest was 33 percent. The distribution of the scores was highly concentrated around the mean value, with thirty-four BIAs (87 percent of total sample) showing a level of adherence ≥ 60 percent. Only two BIAs reported an adherence < 50 percent (5 percent of total sample). Six representative features showed a level of adherence < 50 percent: off-label use (0 percent); uncertainty (26 percent); validation (33 percent); choice of computing framework (44 percent); eligible population (44 percent) and relevant features of healthcare system (49 percent).

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared to the Principles of Good Practice, the BIAs included in the systematic review were overcomplicated and deterministic, ignoring the impact of possible scenarios relevant to budget holders. The research advocates a wider use of scenario planning as a tool to link uncertainty to the economic assessment of new interventions.

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

A budget-impact analysis is required by many jurisdictions when adding a new drug to the formulary. However, previous reviews have indicated that adherence to methodological guidelines is variable. In this methodological review, we assess the extent to which US budget-impact analyses for new drugs use recommended practices. We describe recommended practice for seven key elements in the design of a budget-impact analysis. Targeted literature searches for US studies reporting estimates of the budget impact of a new drug were performed and we prepared a summary of how each study addressed the seven key elements. The primary finding from this review is that recommended practice is not followed in many budget-impact analyses. For example, we found that growth in the treated population size and/or changes in disease-related costs expected during the model time horizon for more effective treatments was not included in several analyses for chronic conditions. In addition, all drug-related costs were not captured in the majority of the models. Finally, for most studies, one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were very limited, and the ranges used in one-way sensitivity analyses were frequently arbitrary percentages rather than being data driven. The conclusions from our review are that changes in population size, disease severity mix, and/or disease-related costs should be properly accounted for to avoid over- or underestimating the budget impact. Since each budget holder might have different perspectives and different values for many of the input parameters, it is also critical for published budget-impact analyses to include extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses based on realistic input values.

Paucity and Inconsistency: A Systematic Review and Critique of Budget Impact Analyses of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis in the UK and the Implications for Policy in the UK

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Budget impact analysis (BIA) has become an essential part of economic evaluation within health technology assessment. Several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are now available for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). This study sought to identify the inputs and assumptions used in existing BIAs for DMTs in the UK, and the uncertainty and variation in these, to allow critique within the context of UK policy.

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Economic Evaluations Database from the Cochrane Library were searched systematically on 15 December 2014 to identify BIAs of DMTs licensed for MS in the UK. In addition, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and National Health Service (NHS) England websites were searched for relevant publications and grey literature searching was undertaken. Sources and assumptions from the included analyses were extracted, compared and critiqued.

RESULTS

The database searches produced 115 de-duplicated results. An additional 12 results were identified from the NICE and NHS England websites. No BIAs of DMTs for MS in the UK were identified in the literature. All ten included studies were from the NICE website, comprising manufacturer submissions for each DMT and corresponding NICE costing templates. There are considerable uncertainties in the inputs and assumptions used in the BIAs, but limited sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

Data limitations were not highlighted in the results, failing to present the uncertainty in the results to users clearly. It is to be welcomed that NICE has recently consulted on a process change to allow additional critique of the costing templates.

Drug Pricing Evolution in Hepatitis C

Objective

We aimed to determine the association between the stepwise increase in the sustained viral response (SVR) and Swiss and United States (US) market prices of drug regimens for treatment-naive, genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the last 25 years. We identified the following five steps in the development of HCV treatment regimens: 1) interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy in the early '90s, 2) IFN-α in combination with ribavirin (RBV), 3) pegylated (peg) IFN-α in combination with RBV, 4) the first direct acting antivirals (DAAs) (telaprevir and boceprevir) in combination with pegIFN-α and RBV, and 5) newer DAA-based regimens, such as sofosbuvir (which is or is not combined with ledipasvir) and fixed-dose combination of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir and ombitasvir in combination with dasabuvir.

Design

We performed a linear regression and mean cost analysis to test for an association between SVRs and HCV regimen prices. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using US prices at the time of US drug licensing. We selected randomized clinical trials of drugs approved for use in Switzerland from 1997 to July 2015 including treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection.

Results

We identified a statistically significant positive relationship between the proportion of patients achieving SVRs and the costs of HCV regimens in Switzerland (with a bivariate ordinary least square regression yielding an R2 measure of 0.96) and the US (R2 = 0.95). The incremental cost per additional percentage of SVR was 597.14 USD in Switzerland and 1,063.81 USD in the US.

Conclusion

The pricing of drugs for HCV regimens follows a value-based model, which has a stable ratio of costs per achieved SVR over 25 years. Health care systems are struggling with the high resource use of these new agents despite their obvious long-term advantages for the overall health of the population. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry, health care payers and other stakeholders are challenged with finding new drug pricing schemes to treat the entire population infected with HCV.

Budget impact analysis of medicines: updated systematic review and implications

This evaluation determines whether published studies to date meet the key characteristics identified for budget impact analyses (BIA) for medicines, accomplished through a systematic review and assessment against identified key characteristics. Studies from 2001-2015 on 'budget impact analysis' with 'drug' interventions were assessed, selected based on their titles/abstracts and full texts, and their characteristics checked according to key criteria. Out of 1,984 studies, 92 were subsequently identified for review. Of these, 95% were published in Europe and the USA. 2012 saw the largest number of publications (16%) with a decline thereafter. 48% met up to 7 out of the 9 key characteristics. Only 22% stated no conflict of interest. The results indicate low adherence to the key characteristics that should be considered for BIAs and strong conflict of interest. This is an issue since BIAs can be of fundamental importance in managing the entry of new medicines including reimbursement decisions.

Addressing challenges for sustainable healthcare in Central and Eastern Europe

All European countries face increasing challenges in the provision of equitable and comprehensive healthcare for their citizens in view of a number of factors. These include changing demographics and the continual launch of new premium priced medicines. The challenges are even more difficult among Central and Eastern European healthcare systems. Consequently, there is a need for countries to learn from each other to help address some of these challenges and to maintain sustainable systems. This was the basis of the 2-day conference, The Fifth International Conference: Challenges for Efficient Healthcare in Central and Eastern Europe, 9-10 October 2015, Belgrade, Serbia.

A budget impact model for biosimilar infliximab in Crohn's disease in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the budget impact of the introduction of biosimilar infliximab for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

METHODS

A 3-year, prevalence-based budget impact analysis for biosimilar infliximab to treat CD was developed from third-party payers' perspective. The model included various scenarios depending on whether interchanging originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab was allowed or not.

RESULTS

Total cost savings achieved in biosimilar scenario 1 (interchanging not allowed) and BSc2 (interchanging allowed in 80% of the patients) were estimated to €8.0 million and €16.9 million in the six countries. Budget savings may cover the biosimilar infliximab therapy for 722-1530 additional CD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of biosimilar infliximab to treat CD may offset the inequity in access to biological therapy for CD between Central and Eastern European countries.

Quality indicators as a tool in improving the introduction of new medicines

Quality indicators are increasingly used as a tool to achieve safe and quality clinical care, cost-effective therapy, for professional learning, remuneration, accreditation and financial incentives. A substantial number focus on drug therapy but few address the introduction of new medicines even though this is a burning issue. The objective was to describe the issues and challenges in designing and implementing a transparent indicator framework and evaluation protocol for the introduction of new medicines and to provide guidance on how to apply quality indicators in the managed entry of new medicines. Quality indicators need to be developed early to assess whether new medicines are introduced appropriately. A number of key factors need to be addressed when developing, applying and evaluating indicators including dimensions of quality, suggested testing protocols, potential data sources, key implementation factors such as intended and unintended consequences, budget impact and cost-effectiveness, assuring the involvement of the medical professions, patients and the public, and reliable and easy-to-use computerized tools for data collection and management. Transparent approaches include the need for any quality indicators developed to handle conflict of interests to enhance their validity and acceptance. The suggested framework and indicator testing protocol may be useful in assessing the applicability of indicators for new medicines and may be adapted to healthcare settings worldwide. The suggestions build on existing literature to create a field testing methodology that can be used to produce country-specific quality indicators for new medicines as well as a cross international approach to facilitate access to new medicines.

Budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in six Central and Eastern European countries

The first biosimilar monoclonal antibody (infliximab, CT-P13) was registered by the European Medicines Agency in 2013 for the treatment of several inflammatory conditions including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilar infliximab is first being marketed in the Central and Eastern European countries. This paper presents the estimated budget impact of the introduction of biosimilar infliximab in RA over a 3-year time period in six selected countries, namely Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. A prevalence-based model was constructed for budget impact analysis. Two scenarios were compared to the reference scenario (RSc) where no biosimilar infliximab is available: biosimilar scenario 1 (BSc1), where interchanging the originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab is disallowed, and only patients who start new biological therapy are allowed to use biosimilar infliximab; as well as biosimilar scenario 2 (BSc2), where interchanging the originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab is allowed, and 80% of patients treated with originator infliximab are interchanged to biosimilar infliximab. Compared to the RSc, the net savings are estimated to be €15.3 or €20.8 M in BSc1 and BSc2, respectively, over the 3 years. If budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional biosimilar infliximab treatment, approximately 1,200 or 1,800 more patients could be treated in the six countries within 3 years in the two biosimilar scenarios, respectively. The actual saving is most sensitive to the assumption of the acquisition cost of the biosimilar drug and to the initial number of patients treated with biological therapy. The study focused on one indication (RA) and demonstrated that the introduction of biosimilar infliximab can lead to substantial budget savings in health care budgets. Further savings are expected for other indications where biosimilar medicines are implemented.