BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is increasing, and tools are needed to understand the economic impact of new drugs on the hospital pharmacy budget. OBJECTIVE: To develop an interactive budget impact model (BIM) through a collaborative effort of industry, academia, and modeling experts to evaluate the use of a new agent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); this BIM included an institutional module specific to the needs of practices that purchase medications for use in institutional settings. METHODS: Treatment regimens, doses, duration of therapy, toxicity, and cost data are from published sources. All input data may be modified to match the local population. Outputs include cost of care, reimbursement, and margin overall and by treatment regimen. RESULTS: The base case assumes 20 NSCLC patients progressing after initial therapy (3 receiving ramucirumab+docetaxel, 2 bevacizumab+erlotinib, 3 docetaxel, 6 erlotinib, and 6 pemetrexed), wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) purchase price, and reimbursement at WAC+4.3%. The model estimated the total cost and reimbursement for the institutional oncology pharmacy to be $699,413 and $729,487, respectively, resulting in a margin of $30,075 (difference due to rounding) for the year for regimens utilized in the treatment of NSCLC in the post-progression setting. Results will vary depending on the input data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing need for institutional pharmacies to plan ahead and anticipate the impact of new drugs on their oncology budgets. This interactive Excel-based institutional BIM may provide evidence-based support for pharmacy decision making.
BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is increasing, and tools are needed to understand the economic impact of new drugs on the hospital pharmacy budget. OBJECTIVE: To develop an interactive budget impact model (BIM) through a collaborative effort of industry, academia, and modeling experts to evaluate the use of a new agent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); this BIM included an institutional module specific to the needs of practices that purchase medications for use in institutional settings. METHODS: Treatment regimens, doses, duration of therapy, toxicity, and cost data are from published sources. All input data may be modified to match the local population. Outputs include cost of care, reimbursement, and margin overall and by treatment regimen. RESULTS: The base case assumes 20 NSCLCpatients progressing after initial therapy (3 receiving ramucirumab+docetaxel, 2 bevacizumab+erlotinib, 3 docetaxel, 6 erlotinib, and 6 pemetrexed), wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) purchase price, and reimbursement at WAC+4.3%. The model estimated the total cost and reimbursement for the institutional oncology pharmacy to be $699,413 and $729,487, respectively, resulting in a margin of $30,075 (difference due to rounding) for the year for regimens utilized in the treatment of NSCLC in the post-progression setting. Results will vary depending on the input data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing need for institutional pharmacies to plan ahead and anticipate the impact of new drugs on their oncology budgets. This interactive Excel-based institutional BIM may provide evidence-based support for pharmacy decision making.
Authors: Warren Stevens; Tomas J Philipson; Zeba M Khan; Joanna P MacEwan; Mark T Linthicum; Dana P Goldman Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Glen T Schumock; Edward C Li; Katie J Suda; Michelle D Wiest; Joann Stubbings; Linda M Matusiak; Robert J Hunkler; Lee C Vermeulen Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Sean D Sullivan; Josephine A Mauskopf; Federico Augustovski; J Jaime Caro; Karen M Lee; Mark Minchin; Ewa Orlewska; Pete Penna; Jose-Manuel Rodriguez Barrios; Wen-Yi Shau Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Rafat Ansari; Frederique Bustin; Patrick Flynn; Lowell Hart; Gregory A Otterson; Gordana Vlahovic; Chang-Heok Soh; Paula O'Connor; John Hainsworth Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Giorgio Scagliotti; Thomas Brodowicz; Frances A Shepherd; Christoph Zielinski; Johan Vansteenkiste; Christian Manegold; Lorinda Simms; Frank Fossella; Katherine Sugarman; Chandra P Belani Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Edward B Garon; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; Oscar Arrieta; Kumar Prabhash; Konstantinos N Syrigos; Tuncay Goksel; Keunchil Park; Vera Gorbunova; Ruben Dario Kowalyszyn; Joanna Pikiel; Grzegorz Czyzewicz; Sergey V Orlov; Conrad R Lewanski; Michael Thomas; Paolo Bidoli; Shaker Dakhil; Steven Gans; Joo-Hang Kim; Alexandru Grigorescu; Nina Karaseva; Martin Reck; Federico Cappuzzo; Ekaterine Alexandris; Andreas Sashegyi; Sergey Yurasov; Maurice Pérol Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lisa M Hess; Michael Grabner; Liya Wang; Astra M Liepa; Xiaohong Ivy Li; Zhanglin Lin Cui; Lee Bowman; William R Schelman Journal: Pragmat Obs Res Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Michael J Harvey; Yi Zhong; Eric Morris; Jacob N Beverage; Robert S Epstein; Anita J Chawla Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katherine M Prioli; Ilze Abersone; Patricia M Kopko; Jay H Herman; Brian Custer; Laura T Pizzi Journal: Transfusion Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.337