Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions

Abstract

Objectives: Research has shown that effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and severity of illness each play a role in drug reimbursement decisions. However, the role of budget impact in such decisions is less obvious. Policy makers almost always demand a budget impact estimate yet seem reluctant to formally include budget impact as a rationing criterion. Health economists even reject budget impact as a legitimate criterion. For these reasons, it is important to examine its use in rationing decisions, and rationales underlying its use. Methods: We trace several rationales supporting the use of budget impact through a literature review, supplemented by semistructured interviews with eleven key stakeholders involved in drug reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands. Results: Budget impact arguments are used in certain instances, although policy makers appear uncomfortable with its use because well described rationales still are lacking. In addition, we identify the following rationales to support budget impact as a rationing criterion: opportunity costs, loss aversion, uncertainty and equal opportunity. Conclusions: Budget impact plays a role in drug reimbursement decisions and has rationales to support its use. However, policy makers do not easily admit that they consider budget impact and are even reluctant to explicitly use budget impact as a formal criterion. A debate would strengthen the theoretical foundation of budget impact as a legitimate criterion in the context of drug reimbursement decisions. Such discussion of budget impact's role will also enhance policy-makers' accountability.

Criteria for Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making: An Emerging Public Health Challenge in Bulgaria

“…This combined background is crucial, because it answers fundamental questions of whether a health technology presents a value for the money and what resources will eventually be necessary to implement this decision (22,23). The actual implementation of these and other efficiency criteria is, however, very often unclear and non-transparent.…”

“…This problem is highlighted even in countries where credibility and accountability have long been established as a mandatory requirement in public health decision-making (24). Niezen et al (23) concluded that despite the fact that regulators almost always demand a budget impact estimate, they seem reluctant to formally include it as a rationing criterion. Budget impact is believed to be lacking scientific rigor, thus not representing a rational use of evidence-based and explicit knowledge.…”

Factors associated with the diffusion rate of innovations: a pilot study from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System

“…There has been growing interest in BIA recently 4 and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies in several countries request BIA to support decision making processes on the adoption of health technology innovations 5,6,7,8 .…”

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches

“…Nevertheless, many insurers require manufacturers to provide "budget impact assessments" whose main purpose appears to be to limit expenditure on those drugs anticipated to have a large total cost. (25) An expenditure cap appears to work against the incentives created by VBP, since it limits the upside of the manufacturer and thus reduces the motivation to develop the therapies with the greatest potential to improve population health. Nevertheless, an expenditure cap may still be optimal to reduce investment in innovation.…”