Good practices for the development of budget impact models at regional level
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2023.2582Keywords:
Best practices, Budget impact analysis, ISPORAbstract
Introduction: The present work aims to discuss the current scenario of procedures and regulations regarding budget impact analysis/models (BIA/BIM) at regional level in Italy and to provide a standardized approach and detailed recommendations for developing these analyses.
Method: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to collect existing guidelines or specific regional procedures for budget impact analysis in Italy. All the records were analysed in qualitative terms according to a pre-specified analytical framework, based on the ISPOR BIA guidelines. At the end of the analysis, a consensus questionnaire was developed to establish agreed approaches and to provide possible solutions to any critical issues. A list of 39 statements was developed. The survey was distributed to 69 experts who rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as more than 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing with any given statement.
Results: Sisty-nine experts answered the questionnaire; a total of 30/39 statements achieved consensus. There was agreement on most of the statements. Time horizon to consider and costs were the issues on which no agreement was found. The results allowed the working group to define a list of good practices.
Conclusion: While the structure and development of BIM are now well-known and well-applied at national level, there remains a great diversity of management of BIM tools at regional level. Consensus was reached among participating experts, as to the main characteristics, determinants and features of regional BIA/BIM in the perspective of the Italian payer.
Downloads
References
Linee guida per la compilazione del dossier a supporto della domanda di rimborsabilità e prezzo di un medicinale ai sensi del d.m. 2 agosto 2019. Versione 1.0 - 2020. Online https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/1307543/2021.01.22_estratto_linee_guida_sezione_E.pdf (Accessed March 2023)
Ravasio R, Girolomoni G, Gorla R. Analisi di budget impact del biosimilare di etanercept: lo scenario italiano. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2018;5:1-12. https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2018.444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33393/abtpn.2019.280
Basile M, Somaini L, Cicchetti A. Analisi di Budget Impact della formulazione depot di buprenorfina a rilascio prolungato per la gestione di pazienti affetti da disturbo da uso di oppiacei. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2021;8:96-104. https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2021.2237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2021.2237
Bini C, Mennini FS, Marcellusi A, Paoletti M, Tomino C. Analisi di impatto di budget di un nuovo sistema di cura in pazienti affetti da malattia di Parkinson. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2022;9:91-98. https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2413 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2413
Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x PMID:17888098 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x
Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, 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 Jan-Feb;17(1):5-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291 PMID:24438712 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008-1015. PMID:11095242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
Giannarou L, Zervas E. Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. Int J Bus Sci Appl Manag. 2014;9:65-82.
Mauskopf J. Stephanie R. Earnshaw, Anita Brogan, Sorrel Wolowacz, Thor-Henrik Brodtkorb. Budget-Impact Analysis of Health Care Interventions. A Practical Guide. Springer International Publishing AG; 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50482-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50482-7
Tastle WJ, Wierman MJ, Dumdum UR. Ranking ordinal scales using the consensus measure. Issues Inf Syst. 2005;6(2):96-102.
Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs--same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_1.x PMID:19138306 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_1.x
Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):404-406. PMID:19138305 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_2.x PMID:19138305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_2.x
Tarricone R, Callea G, Ogorevc M, Prevolnik Rupel V. Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices. Health Econ. 2017;26(suppl 1):70-92. PMID:28139085 https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3471 PMID:28139085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3471
Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana. Serie Generale n. 300 del 23.12.1996. Online https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1996/12/23/300/sg/pdf (Accessed March 2023)
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2023-05-17
Published 2023-06-26
