BACKGROUND: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a relatively recent technique that is supposed to be complementary to more established economic evaluations (EEs). OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the BIAs published on drugs in the EU since December 2008, to assess whether these studies have improved in quality in the last few years. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on the international databases PubMed and EMBASE. The selected articles were screened using a two-step approach to assess (1) their main methodological characteristics and (2) the level of adherence to the latest BIA definition. The assessment was made by two independent reviewers and any disagreement was resolved through discussion. RESULTS: Eventually, 17 articles were reviewed. Thirteen referred to a stand-alone BIA not accompanying a full EE, only nine focussed on a new treatment, 15 were sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug of reference, all but one claiming savings for healthcare budgets. The quality of methods was poor in many of the studies, and only a few of them attempted to estimate real local costs in a credible way. Therefore, the crucial items that in theory make a BIA different from other types of EEs were often the major points of weakness of the studies reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Our review confirmed that the BIA is not yet a well-established technique in the literature and many published studies still fail to reach an acceptable quality. In particular, BIAs funded by pharmaceutical companies appear to be tailored to show short-term savings induced by new, highly priced products.
BACKGROUND: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a relatively recent technique that is supposed to be complementary to more established economic evaluations (EEs). OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the BIAs published on drugs in the EU since December 2008, to assess whether these studies have improved in quality in the last few years. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on the international databases PubMed and EMBASE. The selected articles were screened using a two-step approach to assess (1) their main methodological characteristics and (2) the level of adherence to the latest BIA definition. The assessment was made by two independent reviewers and any disagreement was resolved through discussion. RESULTS: Eventually, 17 articles were reviewed. Thirteen referred to a stand-alone BIA not accompanying a full EE, only nine focussed on a new treatment, 15 were sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug of reference, all but one claiming savings for healthcare budgets. The quality of methods was poor in many of the studies, and only a few of them attempted to estimate real local costs in a credible way. Therefore, the crucial items that in theory make a BIA different from other types of EEs were often the major points of weakness of the studies reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Our review confirmed that the BIA is not yet a well-established technique in the literature and many published studies still fail to reach an acceptable quality. In particular, BIAs funded by pharmaceutical companies appear to be tailored to show short-term savings induced by new, highly priced products.
Authors: Nathalie Vernaz; François Girardin; Nicolas Goossens; Urs Brügger; Marco Riguzzi; Arnaud Perrier; Francesco Negro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.240