Budget impact analysis: can we afford the added value?

The budget impact of implementing atrial fibrillation-screening in European countries

A budget impact analysis estimates the short-term difference between the cost of the current treatment strategy and a new treatment strategy, in this case to implement population screening for atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to estimate the financial impact of implementing population-based AF-screening of 75-year-olds compared with the current setting of no screening from a healthcare payer perspective in eight European countries. The net budget impact of AF-screening was estimated in country-specific settings for Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Serbia, Spain, and Sweden. Country-specific parameters were used to allow for variations in healthcare systems and to reflect the healthcare sector in the country of interest. Similar results can be seen in all countries AF-screening incurs savings of stroke-related costs since AF treatment reduces the number of strokes. However, the increased number of detected AF and higher drug acquisition will increase the drug costs as well as the costs of physician- and control visits. The net budget impact per invited varied from €10 in Ireland to €122 in the Netherlands. The results showed the increased costs of implementing AF-screening were mainly driven by increased drug costs and screening costs. In conclusion, across Europe, though the initial cost of screening and more frequent use of oral anti-coagulants will increase the healthcare payers' costs, introducing population screening for AF will result in savings of stroke-related costs.

Can Cyprus Afford Luspatercept? A Budget Impact Analysis of the Reimbursement of Luspatercept for the Management of Thalassaemia in Cyprus

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to estimate the budget impact of luspatercept reimbursement as an adjuvant to the standard management of β-thalassaemia major in Cyprus, from a societal perspective, and assess the financial feasibility of its inclusion in the β-thalassaemia armamentarium.

METHODS

A 5-year horizon budget impact model was developed to determine the budget impact of reimbursing luspatercept for the management of β-thalassaemia major in Cyprus. Two treatment discontinuation scenarios were elaborated. In the first scenario, luspatercept is reimbursed complementary to best supportive care, and a dropout rate of 40% is assumed based on published real-world data, while for the second scenario a dropout rate of 25%, is assumed as per the clinical trial data. Input parameters were retrieved from the phase III clinical trial of luspatercept, literature, and expert opinion consensus. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for both scenarios.

RESULTS

The addition of luspatercept to the standard management of β-thalassaemia major in Cyprus imparted an incremental budget impact ranging from €21,300,643 to €25,834,368, depending on the drop-out rate scenario assumed. Results were sensitive to the number of eligible patients and dose per patient.

CONCLUSION

The potential reimbursement of luspatercept will wield a substantial impact on Cyprus total pharmaceutical expenditure and it is therefore imperative to affix a reimbursement framework that will allow the payer to mitigate uncertainty stemming out of the scarce clinical data and the inherently complex therapeutic landscape of β-thalassemia management.

Financial Impact of a Culturally Sensitive Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program on Increasing Living Donation

BACKGROUND

In the United States, Hispanic/Latinx patients receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) than non-Hispanic White patients. Northwestern Medicine's culturally targeted Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) was found to increase LDKTs in Hispanic patients at 1 of 2 transplant programs with greater implementation fidelity.

METHODS

We conducted a budget impact analysis to evaluate HKTP's impact on program financial profiles from changes in volume of LDKTs and deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKTs) in 2017 to 2019. We estimated HKTP programmatic costs, and kidney transplant (KT) program costs and revenues. We forecasted transplant volumes, HKTP programmatic costs, and KT program costs and revenues for 2022-2024.

RESULTS

At both programs, HKTP programmatic costs had <1% impact on total KT program costs, and HKTP programmatic costs comprised <1% of total KT program revenues in 2017-2019. In particular, the total volume of Hispanic KTs and HKTP LDKTs increased at both sites. Annual KT program revenues of HKTP LDKTs and DDKTs increased by 226.9% at site A and by 1042.9% at site B when comparing 2019-2017. Forecasted HKTP LDKT volume showed an increase of 36.4% (site A) and 33.3% (site B) with a subsequent increase in KT program revenues of 42.3% (site A) and 44.3% (site B) among HKTP LDKTs and DDKTs.

CONCLUSIONS

HKTP programmatic costs and KT evaluation costs are potentially recoverable by reimbursement of organ acquisition costs and offset by increases in total KT program revenues of LDKTs; transplant programs may find implementation of the HKTP financially manageable.

Pharmacoeconomic considerations for acute myeloid leukemia pharmacotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rare blood cancer with a poor prognosis. Recently, targeted drugs have improved survival both in the elderly and in fit patients. However, as monthly costs of targeted agents are high, regulatory bodies often impose restrictions on their use.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the value-for-cost of targeted drugs such as gemtuzumab ozogamycin, CPX-351, midostaurin, gilteritinib, glasdegib, venetoclax, oral azacytidine and enasidenib used to treat adult AML. EMBASE and TRIP databases, together with authority websites were searched for technology assessments. Add-on drugs, namely midostaurin and gemtuzumab ozogamycin, have been reported to have the best pharmacoeconomic profile for newly diagnosed fit patients with FLT3 mutation or favorable/intermediate cytogenetics, since allogeneic transplant rates were stable or reduced. Most of the other drugs, on the other hand, did not achieve highly favorable cost-for-benefit, due to a poor absolute survival gain and/or increased transplant rates.

EXPERT OPINION

The cost of most targeted therapies for AML in unfit patients seems unfair in comparison to the absolute survival advantage provided in fit patients. Point of cure and transplant outcomes should be standardized to allow comparability among the models.