The French National Authority for Health (HAS) Guidelines for Conducting Budget Impact Analyses (BIA)

Ghabri, Salah; Autin, Erwan; Poullié, Anne-Isabelle; Josselin, Jean‐Michel

doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0602-5

Cited by 19 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most BIAs, using the perspective of the primary health care budget holder is recommended. However, in the French, 9 Polish, 12 and Canadian 26 BIA guidelines there is a recommendation to use the patient’s perspective as complementary analysis to the base-case analysis. In contrast, Australia 11 explicitly requires the exclusion of any copayment from any other source beyond the identified budget.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The minimum time horizon in the Canadian BIA guidelines 26 is 3 years, whereas in the updated NICE 10 and Australian 11 guidelines a longer time duration is recommended (6 and 5 years, respectively). France 9 and ISPOR 14 recommend a BIA time horizon varying from 3–5 and 1–5 years in the base-case analysis, respectively. The Brazilian guidelines have also taken a time horizon from 1–5 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the past decade, many jurisdictions around the world have updated their BIA guidelines, including the Ire-land (2018), 8 France (2018), 9 UK (2017), 10 Australia (2016), 11 Poland (2016), 12 and Belgium (2015). 13 ISPOR published their second task force report on good practices for conducting BIA in 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of systematic reviews of BIA empirical studies have recently been published, 21 – 25 and literature reviews of national and transnational BIA guidelines have been conducted as part of national BIA guidelines development (eg, France [2018], 9 Belgium [2015], 13 and Canada [2008] 26 ). However, the Belgian and the Canadian guidelines did not systematically review the BIA literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the French BIA guidelines provides a comprehensive review of the BIA literature, including 9 national BIA guidelines, 5 recommendations of good practices developed by national and international societies for health economics, and 14 methodological publications on existing BIAs, published between 2000 and 2016. 9 Nevertheless, the French review did not provide sufficient details regarding the individual guidelines reviewed and cannot be used as a foundation for constructing a new set of BIA guidelines or updating existing versions. To illustrate, the results were briefly listed in a table in an aggregated form rather than providing a complete detailed list of the BIA recommendations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A methodological review of national and transnational pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions

Foroutan¹,

Tarride²,

Xie³

et al. 2018

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionBudget impact analysis (BIA) in health care, sometimes referred to as resource impact, is the financial change in the use of health resources associated with adding a new drug to a formulary or the adoption of a new health technology. Several national and transnational organizations worldwide have updated their BIA guidelines in the past 4 years. The aim of the present review was to provide a comprehensive list of the key recommendations of BIA guidelines from different countries that may be of interest for those who wish to build or to update BIA guidelines.MethodsNational and transnational BIA guidelines were searched in databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, EconLit, CINAHL, Business Source Premier, HealthSTAR, and the gray literature including regulatory agency websites. Data were reviewed and abstracted based on key elements in a standard BIA model (analytical model structure, input and data sources, and reporting format).ResultsEight national (Australia, UK, Belgium, Ireland, France, Poland, Brazil, and Canada) and one transnational (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) BIA guidelines were included in this review, and a comprehensive list of BIA recommendations was identified. The review showed that certain recommendations such as patient population assessment, drug-related direct costs, discounting, and disaggregated results were common across the various jurisdictions. BIA guidelines differed from each other in terms of the number and scope of recommendations, the terminology used (eg, the definition of comparators or cost offsets) and the direction of the recommendations (ie, to include or not to include with respect to such items as off-label indications, indirect costs, clinical outcomes, and resource utilization).ConclusionWhile there was a common purpose for all of the BIA guidelines that were identified, substantial differences did occur in the specific recommendations. The pharmaceutical financing system structure might explain why guidelines from the UK, Australia, and Canada have more country-specific recommendations. The desire to be consistent with adopted economic evaluation assumptions might be another reason for some observed differences between countries. Further research is required to assess the source of the heterogeneity between BIA recommendations are identified in different guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%