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.