Search

The United States is a relatively free-pricing market for pharmaceutical manufacturers to set list prices at the product launch. Few drug price controls exist, and federal price negotiation as a policy has historically been politically untenable. After decades of debate on whether the federal government, specifically the Medicare program, should more actively manage drug prices, the US Congress passed legislation authorizing Medicare to directly negotiate prices with manufacturers. The purpose of this article is to describe elements and implementation of the price negotiation provisions and then comment on the potential impacts on payers, innovations, and the pharmaceutical industry. While impacting only a few drugs each year in the beginning, price negotiation in the Medicare program will have secondary and long-term effects in the US market and beyond. It is clear that in the United States, the Medicare market for drugs will no longer be a free-pricing environment in the industry.

The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness.In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates.Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431).In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method.

Objectives The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. Methods We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. Results A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. Conclusion Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

The concept of a reference case, first proposed by the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, has been used to specify the required methodological features of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. In the case of gene therapy, there is a difference of opinion on whether a specific methodological reference case is required. The aim of this article was to provide a more detailed analysis of the characteristics of gene therapy and the extent to which these characteristics warrant modifications to the methods suggested in general reference cases for economic evaluation. We argue that a completely new reference case is not required, but propose a tailored checklist that can be used by analysts and decision makers to determine which aspects of economic evaluation should be considered further, given the unique nature of gene therapy.

Background The accuracy with which hemophilia A can be identified in claims databases is unknown. Objective Develop and validate an algorithm using predictive modeling supported by machine learning to identify patients with hemophilia A in an administrative claims database. Methods We first created a screening algorithm using medical and pharmacy claims to identify potential hemophilia A patients in the US HealthCore Integrated Research Database between January 1, 2006 and April 30, 2015. Medical records for a random sample of patients were reviewed to confirm case status. In this validation sample, we used lasso logistic regression with cross-validation to select covariates in claims data and develop a predictive model to estimate the probability of being a confirmed hemophilia A case. Results The screening algorithm identified 2,252 patients and we reviewed medical records for 400 of these patients. The screening algorithm had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 65%. The predictive model identified 18 predictors of being a hemophilia A case or noncase. The strongest predictors of case status included male sex, factor VIII therapy, office visits for hemophilia A, and hospitalizations for hemophilia A. The strongest predictors of noncase status included hospitalizations for reasons other than hemophilia A and factor VIIa therapy. A probability threshold of ≥0.6 resulted in a PPV of 94.7% (95% CI: 92.0–97.5) and sensitivity of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.5–97.2). Conclusions We developed and validated an algorithm to identify hemophilia A cases in an administrative claims database with high sensitivity and high PPV.

Objectives To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios. Methods COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared. Results Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively. Conclusions Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.

The global prescription medicines industry argues that it needs high prices for new medicines to meet ever-increasing development costs. While many payers are prepared to pay high prices if they represent good value for money, they first need to feel assured that the value for money estimates are robust. Insofar as new medicines enter the market with limited and uncertain data relating to their performance in normal clinical practice, the value for money case for some medicines may well be driven largely by assumptions than by empirical evidence. The concern to manufacturers is that payers respond to this uncertainty by listing the product at a lower price (which may not satisfy the producer) or not listing the product until more evidence is available (which may not satisfy clinicians and patients). Is there a solution that will satisfy all key stakeholders? Will clinicians and patients continue to have timely access to new medicines and will payers have sustainable reimbursement systems? Will the industry continue to be rewarded with high prices for new medicines so long as they represent good value for money? In 2011, the Australian Government introduced a managed entry scheme whereby the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend the listing of a new medicine at a price justified by the existing evidence, pending the availability of more conclusive evidence of cost-effectiveness to support its continued listing at a higher price. This commentary examines the Australian Government's managed entry scheme and issues that are likely to arise from its implementation.

Objectives We examined health care use in conjunction with primary prophylaxis use of colony stimulating factors (CSF) during patients' initial course of chemotherapy. Methods This retrospective cohort study identified adults aged 25 years and older with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or nonsmall cell lung cancer between 2002 and 2005 from the Western Washington Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Puget Sound registry. We linked these records to health insurance claims from four payers representing 75% of those insured in the state. Claims records were used to determine chemotherapy regimen type, CSF use, febrile neutropenia occurrences, and supportive care. Chemotherapy regimens were categorized as conferring high, intermediate, or low risk of myelosuppression according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. CSF use was described as primary prophylaxis, other, or none. Antibiotics and antifungal and antiviral agents per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for supportive care for cancer infection were categorized using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and National Drug Code assignments. Results Use of CSF as primary prophylaxis is not significantly associated with a reduction in antibiotic use or inpatient or outpatient visits. Primary prophylactic CSF use was associated with less use of antiviral drugs. Conclusions CSF use is not associated with a reduction in health care use, with the exception of antiviral drug use. Given the expense associated with CSF use, pragmatic trials and additional research are needed to further assess the affects of CSF on health care use.

Objectives: Solid organ transplantations are among the most expensive treatments yet relatively few investigators have reported wellcharacterized and reliable information on costs. The objective here was to compare the direct medical costs of kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantations in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods: Using data from a province-wide population-based registry, resource utilization data were collated for 1333 patients who underwent solid organ transplantation between 1995 and 2003. Resource categories included hospital stays, physician fees, laboratory and diagnostic testing, and immunosuppressants. Mean costs (2003 $CDN) were derived for the index hospitalization and each of the 2 years after hospital discharge. To enable valid comparisons, the same costing methodology was applied to all four programs. Results: The mean costs of transplantation varied from $27,695 for kidney recipients to $89,942 for lung recipients, with inpatient hospital stays comprising the largest component. Mean costs for the first and second follow-up years ranged from $27,592 and $11,424 for lung recipients to $21,144 and $8086 for liver recipients. Immunosuppressants accounted for between two-thirds and three-fourths of costs by the second year. Within each program, variations in costs could not be accounted for by demographic factors. Conclusions: We observed in BC a threefold variation in mean costs of organ transplantation procedures, with the variations between programs diminishing during follow-up. Policymakers and decision-makers seeking to better understand the deployment of resources for transplantation may focus on clinical factors at the time of hospitalization and factors that influence use and costs of immunosuppressants during the induction and maintenance phases.

Objective In Taiwan, the carrier rate of hepatitis B surface antigen is 15% to 20%, one of the highest in the world. Among chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative accounts for approximately 40% to 50% of these patients. A recent study found that peginterferon alfa-2a (40 KD) is more effective than lamivudine in treating HBeAg-negative CHB, but its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. Our objective is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a compared to 48 weeks of lamivudine, from the perspective of the Taiwan Bureau of National Health Insurance. Methods A Markov model was used to simulate the natural history of HBeAg-negative CHB in a cohort of 40-year-old patients. Efficacy, disease progression, economic, and quality-of-life data were derived from published literature and a survey of clinical experts in Taiwan. Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime costs in New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) (1 USD=31.96 NTD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results The gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a compared to 48 weeks of lamivudine was 0.45 at an additional cost of 157,000 NTD (4900 USD), resulting in an ICER of 347,000 NTD (10,900 USD) per QALY gained. The 95% central range for the ICER from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was 228,000–566,000 NTD (7100–17,700 USD). Conclusions In HBeAg-negative CHB, 48 weeks of treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a compared to 48 weeks of lamivudine appears to offer life expectancy and quality-of-life improvements at an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio.

ObjectiveThere is growing recognition that a comprehensive economic assessment of a new health-care intervention at the time of launch requires both a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and a budget impact analysis (BIA). National regulatory agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia, as well as managed care organizations in the United States, now require that companies submit estimates of both the cost-effectiveness and the likely impact of the new health-care interventions on national, regional, or local health plan budgets. Although standard methods for performing and presenting the results of CEAs are well accepted, the same progress has not been made for BIAs. The objective of this report is to present guidance on methodologies for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses.MethodsThe Task Force was appointed with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors of ISPOR. Members were experienced developers or users of budget impact models, worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments, and came from several countries in North America, Oceana, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force met to develop core assumptions and an outline before preparing a draft report. They solicited comments on the outline and two drafts from a core group of external reviewers and more broadly from the membership of ISPOR at two ISPOR meetings and via the ISPOR web site.ResultsThe Task Force recommends that the budget impact of a new health technology should consider the perspective of the specific health-care decision-maker. As such, the BIA should be performed using data that reflect, for a specific health condition, the size and characteristics of the population, the current and new treatment mix, the efficacy and safety of the new and current treatments, and the resourceuse and costs for the treatments and symptoms as would apply to the population of interest. The Task Force recommends that budget impact analyses be generated as a series of scenario analyses in the same manner that sensitivity analyses would be provided for CEAs. In particular, the input values for the calculation and the specific cost outcomes presented (a scenario) should be specific to a particular decision-maker's population and information needs. Sensitivity analysis should also be in the form of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision-maker. The primary data sources for estimating the budget impact should be published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for efficacy and safety of current and new technologies as well as, where possible, the decision-maker's own population for the other parameter estimates. Suggested default data sources also are recommended. These include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information and in special circumstances, expert opinion. Finally, the Task Force recommends that the analyst use the simplest design that will generate credible and transparent estimates. If a health condition model is needed for the BIA, it should reflect health outcomes and their related costs in the total affected population for each year after the new intervention is introduced into clinical practice. The model should be consistent with that used for the CEA with regard to clinical and economic assumptions.ConclusionThe BIA is important, along with the CEA, as part of a comprehensive economic evaluation of a new health technology. We propose a framework for creating budget impact models, guidance about the acquisition and use of data to make budget projections and a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these proposed good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific budget impact guidelines, but may support and enhance localrecommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.

Objective Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major health problem with high societal costs. The Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease (GOLD) has identified a need for health economics data for COPD. For chronic diseases, such as COPD, where the natural history of disease is lifetime, a modeling approach for economic evaluation may be more realistic than prospective, piggy-backed clinical trials or specific COPD cohort studies. Simulation models can be used to extrapolate clinical data beyond the limited time frame of clinical trials, to analyze subgroups of patients or to explore uncertainty regarding the results by using sensitivity analysis techniques. Our purpose has been to develop a flexible computer simulation model for COPD that will represent disease progression and GOLD recommendations, useful for economic evaluations of new medicines to meet the needs of various payer requirements for reimbursement and resource allocation. Methods This article describes a two-dimensional Markov model, which uses data from multiple sources about disease progression, exacerbation frequency and duration, mortality, costs, burden of illness, and the relationships between those variables. The model is evaluated using stochastic uncertainty analysis, it allows comparison of treatments affecting different disease mechanisms, and it uses primary data validated against published sources. Results We have evaluated two hypothetical interventions treating different features of the disease (lung function decline and acute exacerbations). These analyses show that reducing lung function decline must be a long-term strategy compared to reducing the number of exacerbations. It was necessary to have a long term like 30 years, with 10,000 patients and 20% increase in price, or 20 years with equal prices to show cost-effectiveness with statistical significance for a treatment that reduces lung function decline. Conclusions Our study shows the value of modeling as a tool for evaluating different scenarios and for combining several sources of data, to provide estimates that would otherwise be unavailable. Clinical trials of this size and duration would be unrealistic.

Objective The objective of this report is to provide, in detail, the evidentiary requirements contained in Version 2.0 of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy's (AMCP's) Format for Formulary Submissions and to elaborate on several key issues regarding the use of the Format that users, potential users, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have raised since AMCP published the first version of the guidelines in October 2000. Background The AMCP published its Format for Formulary Submissions in October 2000. The AMCP leadership and its members were motivated to develop these guidelines by a growing need to ensure that any increased utilization of medications, biopharmaceuticals, and vaccine products was appropriate and that newer products would bring added clinical and economic value to covered populations. Since publication of the Format , it has garnered nationwide publicity and attracted consider-able positive and negative attention. As adoption of the AMCP Format has spread, manufacturers have begun to standardize the framework within which they present population-specific data. Since publication of the AMCP Format , the AMCP and the Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy (FMCP) have continuously sought input from pharmaceutical manufacturers and health-system pharmacists through various venues to improve and clarify the process. Version 2.0 is the first attempt to address user's comments and concerns. Methods The majority of the article text is taken directly from Version 2.0 of the AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions published by the AMCP in October 2002. Conclusion The AMCP and the FMCP believe that the AMCP Format is a tool that will help health systems establish a record of commitment to rational decision making, thus gaining the confidence of patients, clinicians, and members. While providing manufacturers a vehicle for communicating the scientifically based value of their product to a health system, the required evidence to substantiate that value argument allows a pharmacy and therapeutics committee to determine the clinical benefits of a drug, verify any cost savings the drug may generate, and determine the overall cost consequences to their health system. The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions is an essential tool to evaluate medications, but requires thoughtful consideration as it is used.

Objectives Recently published studies have demonstrated increased efficacy and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with interferon and α-2b/ribavirin compared with interferon-alpha monotherapy in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Combination therapy is associated with a clinically important adverse effect: ribavirin-induced hemolytic anemia (RIHA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the direct health-care costs and management of RIHA during treatment of CHC in a clinical trial setting. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize information on the incidence and management of RIHA. Decision-analytic techniques were used to estimate the cost of treating RIHA. Uncertainty was evaluated using sensitivity analyses. Results RIHA, defined as a reduction in hemoglobin to less than 100 g/L, occurs in approximately 7% to 9% of patients treated with combination therapy. The standard of care for management of RIHA is reduction or discontinuation of the ribavirin dosage. We estimated the direct cost of treating clinically significant RIHA to be $170 per patient receiving combination therapy per 48-week treatment course (range $68–$692). The results of the one-way sensitivity analyses ranged from $57 to $317. In comparison, the cost of 48 weeks of combination therapy is $16,459. Conclusions The direct cost of treating clinically significant RIHA is 1% ($170/$16,459) of drug treatment costs. Questions remain about the optimal dose of ribavirin and the incidence of RIHA in a real-world population. Despite these uncertainties, this initial evaluation of the direct cost of treating RIHA provides an estimate of the cost and management implications of this clinically important adverse effect.

• We created a cohort Markov model describing the natural history of hepatitis C infection in a population of 1000 treatmentexperienced, 50-year old subjects to evaluate transitions between CHC and other health states (Figure 1). • Using previously published data from the Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-term Treatment against Cirrhosis trial, (3) we modeled four levels of medication adherence: a) >80% PEG-RBV; b) >80% PEG/ 80% RBV; d)

vhe_491 408 In this issue of the Journal, Drummond et al. present their report from the Task Force on Economic Data Transferability [1]. The findings and recommendations extend to 11, the number and scope of guidance documents on contemporary methodology and policy issues published in Value in Health. These methods guidance documents, representing the intellectual work of leaders in the fields of economic evaluation and outcomes research, are intended to provide analysts with a summary of the pertinent problems and a clear set of best practice recommendations for research. The reports receive a great deal of open and often robust peer review at the ISPOR scientific meetings and through an additional formal review by a committee of academic, government, and industry scientists. The Task Force considered the rather difficult questions of whether or not economic data can be transferred from one jurisdiction to another, and if so, under what conditions are the transferred data valid and useful. This subject has been addressed in previous publications but not to the extent and detail found in this report [2,3]. Transferability is of mounting interest because evolving Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programs are increasingly requesting localized economic data to support reimbursement and pricing decisions. It is simply impossible for sponsors of economic studies to undertake de novo research for each and every jurisdiction. In the instances in which transferability of economic data is acceptable, guidance as to how to (or not to) undertake such work has not been available. This report fills in

Objectives To estimate the cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy (Mono) versus adalimumab (ADA) Mono from the US payer perspective in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom methotrexate is inappropriate. Methods We compared TCZ Mono (8 mg/kg monthly) with ADA Mono (40 mg every other week), using efficacy results from a head-to-head study, ADalimumab ACTemrA (ADACTA). We calculated the incremental cost per responder (achievement of American College of Rheumatology [ACR] 20% improvement criteria, ACR 50% improvement criteria, ACR 70% improvement criteria, or low disease activity score) for TCZ versus ADA at 6 months. A patient-level simulation was used to estimate the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of initiating treatment with TCZ Mono versus ADA Mono. Both drugs are followed by an etanercept-certolizumab-palliative care sequence. Nonresponders discontinue at 6 months; responders experience a constant probability of discontinuation. Discontinuers move to the next treatment. ACR responses produce changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. We mapped the HAQ score to utility to estimate QALYs. Costs include those related to hospitalization and those related to treatment (drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted, along with several scenario analyses. Results Compared with ADA, TCZ was more effective, with an estimated 6-month incremental cost ranging from $6,570 per additional low disease activity score achiever to $14,265 per additional ACR 70% improvement criteria responder. The lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,944/QALY. Conclusions TCZ Mono is projected to be cost-effective compared with ADA Mono in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis for whom methotrexate is not appropriate, from a US payer perspective.

Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity. In 2005, ISPOR published the Good Research Practices for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. ISPOR initiated an update of the report in 2014 to include the methodological developments over the last 9 years. This report provides updated recommendations reflecting advances in several areas related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members note that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy) when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach, complemented by relevant subgroup analyses. Uncertainty should be characterized. Articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic studies alongside trials are complementary to other evaluations (e.g., modeling studies) as information for decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

Objective Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a ≥20% FN risk. Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis. Conclusions Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

Summary Applying the knowledge provided by health eco-nomic studies to healthcare decisions at all levelscan only be an asset to healthcare systems. Toachieve this, it is paramount that the informationneeds of potential users of health economics bedetermined, that training is provided to facilitatebetter use of this information, and that the resultsof health economic studies be presented in an eas-ily interpreted and comparable way. Allowing us-ers of this information access to experts in thefield when additional support is needed willensure that the information is not dismissed be-cause it is not understood. A relevant associationsuch as ISPOR has been proposed as a facilitator,bringing representatives of drug companies, man-aged care organizations, and regulatory agenciestogether to discuss areas of compromise, whichwill allow performance of more efficient and use-ful studies. ISPOR should also participate in thedesign and funding of educational programs andin the development of standardized data reportingformats.

BackgroundBudget impact analyses (BIAs) are an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of a health care intervention and are increasingly required by reimbursement authorities as part of a listing or reimbursement submission.ObjectivesThe objective of this report was to present updated guidance on methods for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses. This update was needed, in part, because of developments in BIA methods as well as a growing interest, particularly in emerging markets, in matters related to affordability and population health impacts of health care interventions.MethodsThe Task Force was approved by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Health Sciences Policy Council and appointed by its Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of BIAs; worked in academia and industry and as advisors to governments; and came from several countries in North America and South America, Oceania, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force solicited comments on the drafts from a core group of external reviewers and, more broadly, from the membership of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.ResultsThe Task Force recommends that the design of a BIA for a new health care intervention should take into account relevant features of the health care system, possible access restrictions, the anticipated uptake of the new intervention, and the use and effects of the current and new interventions. The key elements of a BIA include estimating the size of the eligible population, the current mix of treatments and the expected mix after the introduction of the new intervention, the cost of the treatment mixes, and any changes expected in condition-related costs. Where possible, the BIA calculations should be performed by using a simple cost calculator approach because of its ease of use for budget holders. In instances, however, in which the changes in eligible population size, disease severity mix, or treatment patterns cannot be credibly captured by using the cost calculator approach, a cohort or patient-level condition-specific model may be used to estimate the budget impact of the new intervention, accounting appropriately for those entering and leaving the eligible population over time. In either case, the BIA should use data that reflect values specific to a particular decision maker’s population. Sensitivity analysis should be of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision maker. The validation of the model should include at least face validity with decision makers and verification of the calculations. Data sources for the BIA should include published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for the efficacy and safety of the current and new interventions as well as the decision maker’s own population for the other parameter estimates, where possible. Other data sources include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information, and, in special circumstances, expert opinion. Reporting of the BIA should provide detailed information about the input parameter values and calculations at a level of detail that would allow another modeler to replicate the analysis. The outcomes of the BIA should be presented in the format of interest to health care decision makers. In a computer program, options should be provided for different categories of costs to be included or excluded from the analysis.ConclusionsWe recommend a framework for the BIA, provide guidance on the acquisition and use of data, and offer a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific BIA guidelines but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.