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

Examining the Effect of Depicting a Patient Affected by a Negative Reimbursement Decision in Healthcare on Public Disagreement with the Decision

BACKGROUND

The availability of increasingly advanced and expensive new health technologies puts considerable pressure on publicly financed healthcare systems. Decisions to not-or no longer-reimburse a health technology from public funding may become inevitable. Nonetheless, policymakers are often pressured to amend or revoke negative reimbursement decisions due to the public disagreement that typically follows such decisions. Public disagreement may be reinforced by the publication of pictures of individual patients in the media. Our aim was to assess the effect of depicting a patient affected by a negative reimbursement decision on public disagreement with the decision.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment in a representative sample of the public (n = 1008) in the Netherlands and assessed the likelihood of respondents' disagreement with policymakers' decision to not reimburse a new pharmaceutical for one of two patient groups. We presented a picture of one of the patients affected by the decision for one patient group and "no picture available" for the other group. The groups were described on the basis of patients' age, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and life expectancy (LE) before treatment, and HRQOL and LE gains from treatment. We applied random-intercept logit regression models to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that respondents were more likely to disagree with the negative reimbursement decision when a picture of an affected patient was presented. Consistent with findings from other empirical studies, respondents were also more likely to disagree with the decision when patients were relatively young, had high levels of HRQOL and LE before treatment, and large LE gains from treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for the effect of depicting individual, affected patients on public disagreement with negative reimbursement decisions in healthcare. Policymakers would do well to be aware of this effect so that they can anticipate it and implement policies to mitigate associated risks.

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations

The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

The role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions on health technologies in the Netherlands

Health authorities using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for informing reimbursement decisions on health technologies increasingly require economic evaluations encompassing both CEA and budget impact analysis (BIA). Good Research Practices advocate that the economic and clinical assumptions underlying these analyses are aligned and consistently applied. Nonetheless, CEAs and BIAs often are stand-alone analyses used in different stages of the decision-making process. This article used policy reports and Ministerial correspondence to discuss and elucidate the role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands. The results indicate that CEAs and BIAs are both considered important for informing these decisions. While the requirements regarding CEAs-and application of the associated decision rule-are consistent across the different stages, the same does not hold for BIAs. Importantly, the definition of and evidence on budget impact differs between stages. Some important aspects (e.g. substitution and saving effects) typically are considered in the assessment and appraisal stages but are seemingly not considered in price negotiations and the final reimbursement decision. Further research is warranted to better understand why BIAs are not aligned with CEAs (e.g. in terms of underlying assumptions), vary in form and importance between stages, and do not have a clear relationship with the results of CEAs in the decision-making framework. Improving the understanding of the circumstances under which decision-makers attach a relatively larger or smaller weight to (different aspects of) budget impact may contribute to increasing the transparency, consistency, and optimality of reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands.

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.

Health economic evaluations for Indonesia: a systematic review assessing evidence quality and adherence to the Indonesian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Guideline

Background

The Government of Indonesia implemented health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure quality and cost control in the National Health Insurance Program (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional/JKN). The current aim of the study was to improve the usefulness of future economic evaluation for resource allocation by appraising current methodology, reporting, and source of evidence quality of studies.

Methods

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to search for relevant studies using a systematic review. The methodology and reporting adherence were appraised according to Indonesia's HTA Guideline issued in 2017. The differences in adherence before and after the guideline dissemination were compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for methodology adherence wherever appropriate, and the Mann-Whitney test for reporting adherence. The source of evidence quality was assessed using evidence hierarchy. Two scenarios of the study start date and the guideline dissemination period were tested using sensitivity analyses.

Findings

Eighty-four studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and two local journals. Only two articles cited the guideline. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was found between the pre-dissemination and post-dissemination period with respect to methodology adherence, except for outcome choice. Studies during the post-dissemination period showed a higher score for reporting which was statistically significant (P = 0.01). However, the sensitivity analyses revealed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in methodology (except for modelling type, P = 0.03) and reporting adherence between the two periods.

Interpretation

The guideline did not impact the methodology and reporting standard used in the included studies. Recommendations were provided to improve the usefulness of economic evaluations for Indonesia.

Funding

The Access and Delivery Partnership (ADP) hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI).

Budget impact analysis of breast cancer medications: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer globally among women, with 2,261,419 new cases in 2020; systemic treatment may be neo-adjuvant, adjuvant, or both. BC subtype guides the standard systemic therapy administered, which consists of endocrine therapy for all HR + tumors, trastuzumab-based HER2-directed antibody therapy plus chemotherapy for all HER2 + tumors (with endocrine therapy given in addition, if concurrent HR positivity), and chemotherapy alone for the triple-negative subtype. This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and systematically review all budget impact analyses (BIAs) of BC medications worldwide.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were thoroughly searched up to 26th March 2022 to identify original published studies which evaluate BIA of BC medications. ISPOR Task Force guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 17 BIAs were included in the study. About half of the studies were conducted in Europe. The results of the BIAs showed that most of the included BIAs are conducted from the payer's perspective; they have different methodological frameworks for recommended chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy agents to treat BC. For the same medications, the results of budgetary effects are not consistent in diverse countries. Nine out of the 17 studies were focused on trastuzumab, in which the biosimilar form reduced costs, but the brand form increased costs, especially in a 52-week treatment period.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should conduct the budget impact analysis of high-value medications such as anti-tumor drugs more objectively, and the accuracy of parameters needs to be more strictly guaranteed. Furthermore, it is worthy of declaring that the budgetary impact of the same drug is not always consistent over time, so the researchers should measure access to medication in the long run.

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.