OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to cover the ways of solving the problem of understanding the results of two key methods of pharmacoeconomic analysis - budget impact and cost-effectiveness. It is important to note that pharmacoeconomic assessment based on this evidence often has controversial character. The results of one type of analysis can characterize assessed health technology favorably, and the results of other critically. Pharmacoeconomic evidence is often a crucial part of decision-making in healthcare, that's why clear understanding of combination of this two types of analysis is highly in demand. METHODS: Authors propose methodological solution of the stated problem. This model is a useful tool in making unified pharmacoeconomic report based on cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis results. Use of this model preserves the meaning and significance of each type of pharmacoeconomic analysis. RESULTS: Three-dimensional pharmacoeconomic model proposes full account of both types of pharmacoeconomic analyses during conclusion preparation, the formation of a single consistent pharmacoeconomic conclusion. Though further validation of a tool is needed, presented model can be interesting for the professional community. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model of combining budget impact and cost-effectiveness analysis can be used by healthcare decision-makers for obtaining reliable and transparent pharmacoeconomic data.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to cover the ways of solving the problem of understanding the results of two key methods of pharmacoeconomic analysis - budget impact and cost-effectiveness. It is important to note that pharmacoeconomic assessment based on this evidence often has controversial character. The results of one type of analysis can characterize assessed health technology favorably, and the results of other critically. Pharmacoeconomic evidence is often a crucial part of decision-making in healthcare, that's why clear understanding of combination of this two types of analysis is highly in demand. METHODS: Authors propose methodological solution of the stated problem. This model is a useful tool in making unified pharmacoeconomic report based on cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis results. Use of this model preserves the meaning and significance of each type of pharmacoeconomic analysis. RESULTS: Three-dimensional pharmacoeconomic model proposes full account of both types of pharmacoeconomic analyses during conclusion preparation, the formation of a single consistent pharmacoeconomic conclusion. Though further validation of a tool is needed, presented model can be interesting for the professional community. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model of combining budget impact and cost-effectiveness analysis can be used by healthcare decision-makers for obtaining reliable and transparent pharmacoeconomic data.
Keywords:
budget impact analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; health care decision making; health economics; health technology assessment; pharmacoeconomic model
Authors: Gary L O'Brien; Denis O'Mahony; Paddy Gillespie; Mark Mulcahy; Valerie Walshe; Marie N O'Connor; David O'Sullivan; James Gallagher; Stephen Byrne Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Anna Maria Buehler; Gabriela Castilho; Pierre-Alexandre Dionne; Stephen Stefani Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 8.168
Authors: Nor Zam Azihan Mohd Hassan; Asmah Razali; Mohd Shaiful Jefri Mohd Nor Sham Kunusagaran; Farhana Aminuddin Journal: J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis Date: 2022-10-12