- Email: [email protected]
Budget Impact Vs Cost Effectiveness: Implications for Personalised Cancer Therapies
Annals of Oncology 25 (Supplement 4): iv29–iv30, 2014 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu308.2
special symposium: the impact on health services from personalised targeted therapies BUDGET IMPACT VS COST EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PERSONALISED CANCER THERAPIES
Y. Lievens Radiation Oncology Dept., University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, BELGIUM
abstracts
For decades, continuous rises in health care spending have been considered standard, but the most recent data from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) demonstrate that the cost curve starts to bend in many countries. In this era of budgetary restrictions imposed by the governments, reflection on the economical consequences of our actions becomes unavoidable. One of the consequences of this scarcity in health care resources is that evidence on the value for money of new interventions has become an integral part of reimbursement setting in
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article-abstract/25/suppl_4/iv29/2240831 by guest on 24 October 2019
80IN
many countries. Whereas economic evaluations are typically required for the introduction of new drugs, in recent years this evolution has also been observed for the adoption of other health care interventions such as new surgical procedures and radiotherapy techniques. A full economic evaluation calculates the extra cost ensuing from a new treatment strategy compared to a standard alternative and divides this by the gain in outcome obtained with the new treatment. This results in a so-called incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which allows to a rank the new treatments by value for money, thus supporting the decision on which interventions to introduce in the context of a given – extra – budget. This also entails, unfortunately, that a novel treatment judged acceptable by society on the basis of its cost-effectiveness may turn out unaffordable within the constraints of a restricted budget. Hence the importance to formally analyze the potential budgetary impact of introducing new treatments into the health care basket in parallel with the evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. In a so-called budget impact analysis, the planned resource use and related expenditures of a treatment are estimated over a certain period of time, with the aim to predict the impact of a policy decision on the healthcare budget. In the presentation this intricate balance between cost-effectiveness and budget will be explored through examples on new systemic agents as well as looking at the specificities of non-drug interventions such as radiotherapy. Disclosure: The author has declared no conflicts of interest.
© European Society for Medical Oncology 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
special symposium: the impact on health services from personalised targeted therapies BUDGET IMPACT VS COST EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PERSONALISED CANCER THERAPIES
Y. Lievens Radiation Oncology Dept., University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, BELGIUM
abstracts
For decades, continuous rises in health care spending have been considered standard, but the most recent data from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) demonstrate that the cost curve starts to bend in many countries. In this era of budgetary restrictions imposed by the governments, reflection on the economical consequences of our actions becomes unavoidable. One of the consequences of this scarcity in health care resources is that evidence on the value for money of new interventions has become an integral part of reimbursement setting in
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article-abstract/25/suppl_4/iv29/2240831 by guest on 24 October 2019
80IN
many countries. Whereas economic evaluations are typically required for the introduction of new drugs, in recent years this evolution has also been observed for the adoption of other health care interventions such as new surgical procedures and radiotherapy techniques. A full economic evaluation calculates the extra cost ensuing from a new treatment strategy compared to a standard alternative and divides this by the gain in outcome obtained with the new treatment. This results in a so-called incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which allows to a rank the new treatments by value for money, thus supporting the decision on which interventions to introduce in the context of a given – extra – budget. This also entails, unfortunately, that a novel treatment judged acceptable by society on the basis of its cost-effectiveness may turn out unaffordable within the constraints of a restricted budget. Hence the importance to formally analyze the potential budgetary impact of introducing new treatments into the health care basket in parallel with the evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. In a so-called budget impact analysis, the planned resource use and related expenditures of a treatment are estimated over a certain period of time, with the aim to predict the impact of a policy decision on the healthcare budget. In the presentation this intricate balance between cost-effectiveness and budget will be explored through examples on new systemic agents as well as looking at the specificities of non-drug interventions such as radiotherapy. Disclosure: The author has declared no conflicts of interest.
© European Society for Medical Oncology 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].