title: Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  There is growing recognition that a comprehensive economic assessment of a new health-care intervention at the time of launch requires both a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and a budget impact analysis (BIA). National regulatory agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia, as well as managed care organizations in the United States, now require that companies submit estimates of both the cost-effectiveness and the likely impact of the new health-care interventions on national, regional, or local health plan budgets. Although standard methods for performing and presenting the results of CEAs are well accepted, the same progress has not been made for BIAs. The objective of this report is to present guidance on methodologies for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses.
  
  
  METHODS
  The Task Force was appointed with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors of ISPOR. Members were experienced developers or users of budget impact models, worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments, and came from several countries in North America, Oceana, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force met to develop core assumptions and an outline before preparing a draft report. They solicited comments on the outline and two drafts from a core group of external reviewers and more broadly from the membership of ISPOR at two ISPOR meetings and via the ISPOR web site.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The Task Force recommends that the budget impact of a new health technology should consider the perspective of the specific health-care decision-maker. As such, the BIA should be performed using data that reflect, for a specific health condition, the size and characteristics of the population, the current and new treatment mix, the efficacy and safety of the new and current treatments, and the resource use and costs for the treatments and symptoms as would apply to the population of interest. The Task Force recommends that budget impact analyses be generated as a series of scenario analyses in the same manner that sensitivity analyses would be provided for CEAs. In particular, the input values for the calculation and the specific cost outcomes presented (a scenario) should be specific to a particular decision-maker's population and information needs. Sensitivity analysis should also be in the form of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision-maker. The primary data sources for estimating the budget impact should be published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for efficacy and safety of current and new technologies as well as, where possible, the decision-maker's own population for the other parameter estimates. Suggested default data sources also are recommended. These include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information and in special circumstances, expert opinion. Finally, the Task Force recommends that the analyst use the simplest design that will generate credible and transparent estimates. If a health condition model is needed for the BIA, it should reflect health outcomes and their related costs in the total affected population for each year after the new intervention is introduced into clinical practice. The model should be consistent with that used for the CEA with regard to clinical and economic assumptions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The BIA is important, along with the CEA, as part of a comprehensive economic evaluation of a new health technology. We propose a framework for creating budget impact models, guidance about the acquisition and use of data to make budget projections and a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these proposed good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific budget impact guidelines, but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.
authors: RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
authors: Josephine A
authors: JA
authors: Mauskopf
authors: Sean D
authors: SD
authors: Sullivan
authors: Lieven
authors: L
authors: Annemans
authors: Jaime
authors: J
authors: Caro
authors: C Daniel
authors: CD
authors: Mullins
authors: Mark
authors: M
authors: Nuijten
authors: Ewa
authors: E
authors: Orlewska
authors: John
authors: J
authors: Watkins
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: Trueman
mesh_terms: D020811:Biomedical Technology / Q000191:economics*; D002017:Budgets; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000379:methods*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D011050:Policy Making; D013223:Statistics as Topic