Yashika Chugh1, Maria De Francesco2, Shankar Prinja3. 1. Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. 2. International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. shankarprinja@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to review the recommendations for the conduct of a budget impact analysis in national or organisational guidelines globally. METHODS: We searched several databases including MELDINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, HTA Database (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment), Econlit and IDEAS Database (RePEc, Research Papers in Economics). The OVID platform was used to run the search in all databases simultaneously. In addition, a search of the grey literature was also conducted. The timeframe was set from 2000 to 2020 with language of publication restricted to English. RESULTS: A total of 13 publications were selected. All the countries where financing of health is predominantly tax funded with public provisioning recommend a healthcare payer (government) perspective. However, countries where a healthcare payer includes a mix of federal government, communities, hospital authorities and patient communities recommend a complementary analysis with a wider societal perspective. While four guidelines prefer a simple cost calculator for costing, the rest rely on a decision modelling approach. None of the guidelines recommend discounting except the Polish guidelines, which recommend discounting at 5%. Only two countries, Belgium and Poland, mention that indirect costs, if significant, should be included in addition to direct costs. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative cross-country analysis shows that a standard set of recommendations cannot be directly useful for all as there are contextual differences. Thus, budget impact analysis guidelines must be carefully contextualised in the policy environment of a country so as to reflect the dynamics of health systems.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to review the recommendations for the conduct of a budget impact analysis in national or organisational guidelines globally. METHODS: We searched several databases including MELDINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, HTA Database (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment), Econlit and IDEAS Database (RePEc, Research Papers in Economics). The OVID platform was used to run the search in all databases simultaneously. In addition, a search of the grey literature was also conducted. The timeframe was set from 2000 to 2020 with language of publication restricted to English. RESULTS: A total of 13 publications were selected. All the countries where financing of health is predominantly tax funded with public provisioning recommend a healthcare payer (government) perspective. However, countries where a healthcare payer includes a mix of federal government, communities, hospital authorities and patient communities recommend a complementary analysis with a wider societal perspective. While four guidelines prefer a simple cost calculator for costing, the rest rely on a decision modelling approach. None of the guidelines recommend discounting except the Polish guidelines, which recommend discounting at 5%. Only two countries, Belgium and Poland, mention that indirect costs, if significant, should be included in addition to direct costs. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative cross-country analysis shows that a standard set of recommendations cannot be directly useful for all as there are contextual differences. Thus, budget impact analysis guidelines must be carefully contextualised in the policy environment of a country so as to reflect the dynamics of health systems.