Abstract
Budget-impact analyses can be presented in reports, articles published in peer-reviewed journals, or interactive models programmed in software such as Microsoft Excel. For all types of presentations, reporting of the budget-impact analysis should follow the general standards from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) for economic evaluation analysis (Husereau et al. Value Health 16(2):e1–e5, 2013). These standards suggest that an economic evaluation be presented with sufficient detail that an interested researcher could reproduce the computer program and replicate the results of the analysis when using the described approach and input data provided. From this guidance, the following elements should be included for reporting budget-impact analyses: a complete method summary including the modeling approach; assumptions, values, and data sources (including derivations where relevant) for all input parameter values; comprehensive results comprising base-case aggregated and disaggregated results presented in tables or figures for the treatment mix with and without the new drug and the difference between them; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses; and a discussion presenting conclusions along with strengths and limitations of the analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this chapter, we make the simplifying assumption that the budget-impact analysis is based on the introduction of a new drug to the current mix of drugs for treatment of a condition. Changes in our recommended approaches to estimate the budget impacts of other types of healthcare interventions (i.e., vaccines, diagnostics, surgery, and devices) are discussed in Chap. 13.
References
Asche CV, Clay E, Kharitonova E, Zah V, Ruby J, Aballea S. Budgetary impact of the utilization of buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual film and tablet for Medicaid in the United States. J Med Econ. 2015;18(8):600–11.
Bajaj PS, Veenstra DL, Goertz HP, Carlson JJ. Targeted erlotinib for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a budget impact analysis. J Med Econ. 2014;17(8):538–46. doi:10.3111/13696998.2014.912987.
Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, Xenakis JG, O’Brien JA, Rajagopalan K, Lee K. Budgetary impact of treating acute bipolar mania in hospitalized patients with quetiapine: an economic analysis of clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(11):2233–42.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Physician fee schedule and acute inpatient prospective payment system. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage and http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Acutelnpatient PPS/. Accessed 18 Oct 2006. Cited in: Danese et al. 2008.
Danese MD, Reyes C, Northridge K, Lubeck D, Lin CY, O’Connor P. Budget impact model of adding erlotinib to a regimen of gemcitabine for the treatment of locally advanced, nonresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Clin Ther. 2008;30(4):775–84.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, CHEERS Task Force, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.010.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer incidence in five continents, vol. IX. Lyon: World Health Organization; 2007 . Cited in: Bajaj et al. 2014.
Mauskopf J, Mullins D, Earnshaw S. Budget impact analysis: a six step process. A cost course presented at the 21st International Conference of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Washington, DC, 2016.
Mauskopf J, Muroff M, Gibson PJ, Grainger DL. Estimating the costs and benefits of new drug therapies: atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2002;28(4):619–35.
Rønborg SM, Svendsen UG, Micheelsen JS, Ytte L, Andreasen JN, Ehlers L. Budget impact analysis of two immunotherapy products for treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:253–60. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S34832.
Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Caro JJ, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis—principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291.
Taylor DCA, Chu P, Rosen VM, Baker CL, Thompson D. Budgetary impact of varenicline in smoking cessation in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2009;12(1):28–33.
Watkins JB, Danielson D. Improving the usefulness of budget impact analyses: a U.S. payer perspective. Value Health. 2014;17(1):3–4. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.09.007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mauskopf, J., Earnshaw, S. (2017). Reporting Budget-Impact Analyses. In: Budget-Impact Analysis of Health Care Interventions. Adis, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50482-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50482-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Adis, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50480-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50482-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)