HEALTH ECONOMICS
HEALTH ECONOMICS
Sponsored by a Grant TÁMOP-4.1.2-08/2/A/KMR-2009-0041 Course Material Developed by Department of Economics,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (ELTE) Department of Economics, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest
Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Balassi Kiadó, Budapest
HEALTH ECONOMICS
Authors: Éva Orosz, Zoltán Kaló and Balázs Nagy Supervised by Éva Orosz
June 2011
ELTE Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics
Week 13
Applicability of economic
evaluation in the allocation of
health care reseources and health policy decisions
Authors: Zoltán Kaló and Balázs Nagy Supervised by Éva Orosz
HEALTH ECONOMICS
Budget Impact Analysis
• BIA: an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of a health-care technology:
• Increasingly required, along with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), before formulary approval or reimbursement.
• Purpose: to estimate the financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health-care intervention within a specific
health-care setting or system context given inevitable resource constraints.
• BIA predicts how a change in the mix of drugs and other
therapies used to treat a particular health condition will impact the trajectory of spending on that condition.
• Can be used for budget planning, forecasting and for computing the impact of health technology changes on premiums, financing methods and incentives in health insurance schemes.
Budget Impact Analysis Task Force Report, Value Health, 2007
Structure of BIA report
• Report introduction
– Epidemiology and treatment – Clinical impact
– Economic impact
• Technology
• Objectives
• Study design and methods
– patient population – technology mix – time horizon
– perspective & target audience – model description
– input data
– data sources.
– data collection – analyses
• Results
• Sensitivity analysis
• Conclusion
Budget Impact Analysis Task Force Report, Value Health, 2007
Budget Impact Analysis Task Force Report, Value Health, 2007
Budget Impact Analysis methodology
Ref: Marshall et al: Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (6): 477-495
Market size
Total population (age, gender)
Eligible patients (incidence, prevelance) Diagnosed patients
Diagnosed and treated patients (market size)
Market share, penetration
BIA modelling
• Static model
– Simple calculation of cost impact from changing
one or two factors, holding everything else constant – May be sufficient if the alternative and reference
scenarios are quite similar and probabilities are well known
• Dynamic model
– Captures uncertainty: probability of clinical outcomes
– Captures indirect consequences: more attention on diagnosing patients, shift in resource utilisation,
different copayment of patients – More difficult to understand
BIA perspective
Provider/payer’s perspective.
• Excludes patient-incurred costs.
• BIA should reflect impacts on enrollment and
retention that could result from affecting patients.
• Ignoring patient and societal costs: many
interventions appear less expensive in BIA than in CEA.
• No need to survey patient.
BIA time horizon
Short horizon (max 3–5 years)
• Long-term modeling of costs and clinical outcomes is unnecessary.
• Costs are not usually adjusted for inflation or discounting.
• Reductions in health costs in far future
cannot offset initial costs.
BIA necessary conclusions
• The number of the patients with respect to the treatment, including the method of calculation
• Calculation of daily treatment cost and the expected dosage according to the expected therapeutic
practice in the given indication
• Risk of using the reimbursed technology outside of the reimbursed indication mentioned? (i.e. the
possibility of ‘off-label’ use from a financial perspective)
• Expected sales of the investigated technology
• Net budget impact of the public financing
BIA necessary conclusions
• The location and time horizon of the budget impact and the potential savings?
• If the study mentions savings, will they be realisable in practice from the payers’ aspect?
• If the study mentions savings, will they be realisable in practice from the aspect of the health care provider?
• Sensitivity analysis for the budget impact (number of patients, dose, length of treatment, market penetration, etc.)
• (Will the reimbursement result in additional direct costs or financial burden for the patient?)
Major question of BIA: decision rule
• New technologies usually increase health gain at incremental costs.
• Cost drivers
– increased utilization: extended life (oncology), improved compliance (side-effect profile)
– higher price: improved QoL
– potential reduction of other health care services:
smaller impact than in Western Europe
• Can we expect cost-savings? Probably not.
• If not, what is the criteria for BIA? Especially if cost- effectiveness of the new technology is not known?
Application of economic evaluation:
Exercise
Why do we need the assessment of cost- effectiveness to reimbursement decisions?
• Assessment of health benefits is not
sufficient, as it does not include financial implications (value for money, budget
impact).
• Budget impact analysis: may result in
false conclusion without assessment of
the economic value of new technologies.
Conditions of mandatory economic evaluation in reimbursement decisions
• Human resources (including training)
• Financial resources
• Data availability
• Academic, public institutes
• Political support (willingness to transparency, consistency)
• Collaboration
19
Introduction the fourth hurdle: necessary steps
• Methodological guidelines – how to conduct economic evaluations
• Decision rules – willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life years gain
• Legislation: incorporation of cost-effectiveness evidence into the reimbursement process
• Public budget and organisation for health technology assessment
• Training
– decision-makers – appraisal committee – future trainers
– (undergraduate training)
• Revision of first 20-30 cases iteration and correction
• Critical appraisal checklist
Central Eastern European status
• Compared to Western Europe – worse health status
– even more limited health care resources
– strategic pricing of new health care technologies is adjusted to large Western European countries
• Minimal prospective health economic data collection
• Few trained health economists
• Low public budget for health technology assessment
• No excuse: must improve the appropriateness of reimbursement decisions
Cost effectiveness results
cost QALY
old therapy
12,000 € 0.6improved therapy
24,000 € 1.5Cost effectiveness threshold: 30,000 €
ICER
Results ICER
Comparator dcost/dQALY improved therapy old therapy 13,333 €
ICER
0 € 5 000 € 10 000 € 15 000 € 20 000 € 25 000 € 30 000 € 35 000 € 40 000 €
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4
incremental cost
QALY gain
Cost effectiveness results
cost QALY
old therapy
12,000 € 0.6standard therapy
24,000 € 1.5new therapy
36,000 € 1.8Cost effectiveness threshold: 30,000 €
ICER
Results ICER
Comparator ∆cost/∆QALY standard therapy old therapy 13,333 €
new therapy standard therapy 40,000 €
ICER
0 € 5 000 € 10 000 € 15 000 € 20 000 € 25 000 € 30 000 € 35 000 € 40 000 €
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4
incremental cost
QALY gain
ICER
Results ICER
Comparator ∆cost/∆QALY standard therapy old therapy 13,333 €
new therapy standard therapy 40,000 € new therapy old therapy 20,000 €
Optimisation
cost-effectiveness to local needs
• Reduce price
– confidential rebate/discount
– financial risk-sharing (price volume agreement, etc) – volume related rebate
• Narrow target patient groups
– risk status: only high-risk patients – positioning: only third-line therapy
– selection of potential responders (e.g. genetic test)
• Guarantee outcomes – pay for performance
– outcomes based risk-sharing
Ref: Sullivan S, ISPOR Paris, 2009
performance based schemes
outcome based
conditional coverage
performance linked reimbursement /
outcomes guarantee financial based
patient level population
level conditional
treatment continuation coverage with
evidence development
only in research
only with research market
share price volume
utilization or price cap manufacturer
funded treatment
initiation
ELTE Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics
Thank You for using this teaching material.
We welcome any questions, critical notes or comments we can use to improve it.
Comments are to be sent to our email address listed at our homepage,