Objectives
Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a useful tool for reimbursement decision-makers in health technology assessments by authorities across different countries. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact from the Ministry of Health (MOH) perspective of different adoption rates of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp) versus Biphasic Human Insulin (BHI) in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Methods
An Excel basfed 5-year budget impact model was built to estimate insulin treated patients by public providers using local prevalence data. The published demographic, efficacy and adverse event data for ASEAN subgroup analyses of A1chieve study was applied. Both insulin acquisition costs and other medical costs for complications e.g. major hypoglycaemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, end-stage renal disease, blindness and amputation were included at a discount rate of 3%. The incidence rates of these complications were derived from the established UKPDS equations. The adoption rates were assumed and projected from the 2013 utilisation volume data of BIAsp and BHI by public providers. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
Results
The adoption rates of BIAsp were assumed to increase from 1.8% in 2013 to 4.5% or 6.9% in 2018 for base case and upside scenario, respectively. Compared to the base case, upside scenario of wider BIAsp adoption was associated with an increased insulin cost up to RM 8.2M which was offset by avoided complication costs resulting in an overall net budget saving of approximately RM 5.5M over 5 years, primarily driven by estimated reduction in major hypoglycaemia events for patients treated with BIAsp.
Conclusions
The higher and wider adoption of BIAsp would likely be associated with cost savings in Malaysia from the MOH perspective attributed to its superiority in H1Ac reduction and lower major hypoglycemia risk in comparison to BHI. More cost saving would be concluded if productivity loss is included from a societal perspective.
Objectives
Economic evaluations of BIAsp have been published in the context of different countries. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact from a perspective of patients treated by public providers of different adoption rates of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp; NovoMix 30 FlexPen®) versus Biphasic Human Insulin (BHI; Mixtard Penfill®) in treating T2DM.
Methods
An Excel based 5-year budget impact model was built to estimate insulin treated patients by public providers using the local prevalence data. The published demographic, efficacy and adverse event data for ASEAN subgroup analyses of A1chieve study was applied. Both insulin acquisition costs and medical costs for major hypoglycaemia and other complications were applied with a 3% discount rate to the estimated corresponding incidence rates derived from the UKPDS equations. The projected adoption rates were based on the 2013 utilisation volume data. Other local specific considerations e.g. subsidized selling prices and co-payments were included in the analyses for an assumed size of eligible patients. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
Results
The adoption rates of BIAsp were assumed to increase from 23.6% in 2013 to 30% or 36.5% in 2018 for base case and upside scenario, respectively. In comparison to base case scenario, increases in adoption rate of BIAsp were associated with a cumulative increase up to slightly greater than S$ 2.02M in insulin acquisition cost but a potential cumulative net saving up to approximately S$0.92M in overall total costs over 5 years, attributing to subsidized selling price of BIAsp assuming it is included standard drug list and its significantly lower major hypoglycaemia risk, respectively. Cost savings were predicted for other complications.
Conclusions
The wider adoption of BIAsp was predicted to result in net cost savings from patient perspective in Singapore. More cost saving would be estimated in analyses with reduced productivity loss from a societal perspective.
Health technology assessment (HTA) has been growing in use over the past 40 years, especially in its impact on decisions regarding the reimbursement, adoption, and use of new drugs, devices, and procedures. In countries or jurisdictions with "pluralistic" healthcare systems, there are multiple payers or sectors, each of which could potentially benefit from HTA. Nevertheless, a single HTA, conducted centrally, may not meet the needs of these different actors, who may have different budgets, current standards of care, populations to serve, or decision-making processes. This article reports on the research conducted by an ISPOR Health Technology Assessment Council Working Group established to examine the specific challenges of conducting and using HTA in countries with pluralistic healthcare systems. The Group used its own knowledge and expertise, supplemented by a narrative literature review and survey of US payers, to identify existing challenges and any initiatives taken to address them. We recommend that countries with pluralistic healthcare systems establish a national focus for HTA, develop a uniform set of HTA methods guidelines, ensure that HTAs are produced in a timely fashion, facilitate the use of HTA in the local setting, and develop a framework to encourage transparency in HTA. These efforts can be enhanced by the development of good practice guidance from ISPOR or similar groups and increased training to facilitate local use of HTA.
Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence and patterns of CAM use among diabetes patients in Pakistan. In addition, the study also focused on the perceived effectiveness of CAM over conventional therapies, information seeking behavior and CAM disclosure to healthcare providers.
Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional and self-administered questionnaire based study was conducted in tertiary care public hospitals in Pakistan. A prevalence based sample of 350 diabetes patients attending the tertiary hospital in Punjab, Pakistan were selected for the study. All obtained data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results: Overall, 327 questionnaires were completed and included in the analysis, showing that 52.8% of diabetics had used CAM, with most (62.4%) believing that CAM therapies assist body’s natural forces to heal. CAM usage was significantly associated with gender (P=0.001), level of education (P=0.001), employment status (P=0.03) and monthly income (P<0.001).
Conclusions: Diabetes treatment and management requires compliance to effective therapies at early stages. Healthcare providers should engage diabetics in an open non-judgmental dialogue to ascertain better understanding of diabetes and its management options.