[Budget impact analysis of the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in a hospital]

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.

Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies

This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.