Budget Impact Analysis of Cancer Screening: A Methodological Review

Impact of PSA testing on secondary care costs in England and Wales: estimates from the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP)

BACKGROUND

Screening men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. We aimed to estimate the likely budgetary impact on secondary care in England and Wales to inform screening decision makers.

METHODS

The Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer study (CAP) compared a single invitation to men aged 50-69 for a PSA test with usual care (no screening). Routinely collected hospital care data were obtained for all men in CAP, and NHS reference costs were mapped to each event via Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes. Secondary-care costs per man per year were calculated, and cost differences (and population-level estimates) between arms were derived annually for the first five years following randomisation.

RESULTS

In the first year post-randomisation, secondary-care costs averaged across all men (irrespective of a prostate cancer diagnosis) in the intervention arm (n = 189279) were £44.80 (95% confidence interval: £18.30-£71.30) higher than for men in the control arm (n = 219357). Extrapolated to a population level, the introduction of a single PSA screening invitation could lead to additional secondary care costs of £314 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing a single PSA screening test for men aged 50-69 across England and Wales could lead to very high initial secondary-care costs.

Budget impact analysis of a home-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Malaysia

OBJECTIVES

The 2020-2022 research project 'Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention for Malaysia' (CRC-SIM) evaluated the implementation of a home-based CRC screening pilot in Segamat District. This budget impact analysis (BIA) assessed the expected changes in health expenditure of the Malaysian Ministry of Health budget in the scenario where the pilot programme was implemented nationwide vs current opportunistic screening.

DESIGN

Budget impact analysis. Assumptions and costs in the opportunistic and novel CRC screening scenarios were derived from a previous evaluation of opportunistic CRC screening in community health clinics across Malaysia and the CRC-SIM research project, respectively.

SETTING

National level (with supplement analysis for district level). The BIA was conducted from the viewpoint of the federal government and estimated the annual financial impact over a period of 5 years.

RESULTS

The total annual cost of the current practice of opportunistic screening was RM1 584 321 (~I$1 099 460) of which 80% (RM1 274 690 or ~I$884 587) was expended on the provision of opportunistic CRC to adults who availed of the service. Regarding the implementation of national CRC screening programme, the net budget impact in the first year was estimated to be RM107 631 959 (~I$74 692 546) and to reach RM148 485 812 (~I$103 043 589) in the fifth year based on an assumed increased uptake of 5% annually. The costs were calculated to be sensitive to the probability of adults who were contactable, eligible and agreeable to participating in the programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the BIA provided direct and explicit estimates of the budget changes to when implementing a population-based national CRC screening programme to aid decision making by health services planners and commissioners in Malaysia about whether such programme is affordable within given their budget constraint. The study also illustrates the use and value of the BIA approach in low-income and middle-income countries and resource-constrained settings.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using the Stockholm3 test

Objectives

The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer found that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, however the costs and harms from screening may outweigh any mortality reduction. Compared with screening using the PSA test alone, using the Stockholm3 Model (S3M) as a reflex test for PSA ≥ 1 ng/mL has the same sensitivity for Gleason score ≥ 7 cancers while the relative positive fractions for Gleason score 6 cancers and no cancer were 0.83 and 0.56, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of the S3M test has not previously been assessed.

Methods

We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from a lifetime societal perspective. Using a microsimulation model, we simulated for: (i) no prostate cancer screening; (ii) screening using the PSA test; and (iii) screening using the S3M test as a reflex test for PSA values ≥ 1, 1.5 and 2 ng/mL. Screening strategies included quadrennial re-testing for ages 55–69 years performed by a general practitioner. Discounted costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

Results

Comparing S3M with a reflex threshold of 2 ng/mL with screening using the PSA test, S3M had increased effectiveness, reduced lifetime biopsies by 30%, and increased societal costs by 0.4%. Relative to the PSA test, the S3M reflex thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 2 ng/mL had ICERs of 170,000, 60,000 and 6,000 EUR/QALY, respectively. The S3M test was more cost-effective at higher biopsy costs.

Conclusions

Prostate cancer screening using the S3M test for men with an initial PSA ≥ 2.0 ng/mL was cost-effective compared with screening using the PSA test alone.

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.