Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11456210›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2001

Developing guidance for budget impact analysis.

P Trueman, M Drummond, J Hutton

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions on health technologies in the Netherlands.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. What are economic costs and when should they be used in health economic studies?Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

P TruemanJohnson & Johnson Medical Ltd, Ascot, Berkshire, UK. ptrueman@medgb.jnj.com
M Drummond
J Hutton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of economic evaluation in the efficient allocation of healthcare resources has been widely debated. Whilst economic evidence is undoubtedly useful to purchasers, it does not address the issue of affordability which is an increasing concern. Healthcare purchasers are concerned not just with maximising efficiency but also with the more simplistic goal of remaining within their annual budgets. These two objectives are not necessarily consistent. This paper examines the issue of affordability, the relationship between affordability and efficiency and builds the case for why there is a growing need for budget impact models to complement economic evaluation. Guidance currently available for such models is also examined and it is concluded that this guidance is currently insufficient. Some of these insufficiencies are addressed and some thoughts on what constitutes best practice in budget impact modelling are suggested. These suggestions include consideration of transparency, clarity of perspective, reliability of data sources, the relationship between intermediate and final end-points and rates of adoption of new therapies. They also include the impact of intervention by population subgroups or indications, reporting of results, probability of re-deploying resources, the time horizon, exploring uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, and decision-maker access to the model. Due to the nature of budget impact models, the paper does not deliver stringent methodological guidance on modelling. The intention was to provide some suggestions of best practice in addition to some foundations upon which future research can build.

Indexed as

BudgetsEconomics, PharmaceuticalHealth Care RationingHumans

Identifiers

PMID11456210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.