Buone pratiche per lo sviluppo dei modelli di budget impact a livello regionale

被引:1
|
作者
Marcellusi, Andrea [1 ,22 ]
Ragonese, Angela [1 ]
Marinozzi, Andrea [2 ]
Bortolami, Alberto [3 ]
Mucherino, Sara [4 ]
Moreno, Carolina [5 ]
Antenori, Amalia [6 ]
Ferrario, Matteo [7 ]
Simonelli, Claudia [8 ]
Zanuzzi, Matteo [9 ]
Cicoira, Marco [10 ]
Lasala, Ruggero [11 ]
Russoniello, Francesco [12 ]
Attanasio, Francesco [13 ]
Donati, Caterina [14 ]
Roni, Chiara [15 ]
Gemmi, Fabrizio [16 ]
Mennini, Francesco Saverio [17 ]
Russo, Pierluigi [18 ]
Scroccaro, Giovanna [19 ]
Canonico, Pier Luigi [20 ,21 ]
机构
[1] Univ Studi Roma Tor Vergata, Econ Evaluat & HTA EEHTA CEIS, Roma, TX USA
[2] ASL 4 Teramo, Farm Osped, Teramo, Italy
[3] Ist Oncol Veneto IRCCS Padova, Padua, Italy
[4] Univ Napoli Federico II, CIRFF Ctr Interdipartimentale Ric Farmacoecon & Fa, Dipartimento Farm, Naples, Italy
[5] Regulatory Pharm Net, Pisa, Italy
[6] Eli Lilly Italy Spa, Reimbursement & Access, Rome, Italy
[7] Roche Spa, Monza, MB, Italy
[8] Medtron Clin & Regulatory Solut MCRS, Study & Sci Solut, Roma, TX USA
[9] Agenzia Italiana Farmaco, Ufficio Valutazioni Econ, Rome, Italy
[10] ASP Trapani, Dipartimento Farmaco, Trapani, Italy
[11] ASL Bari, Farm Osped, Bari, Italy
[12] ASL Napoli 1 Ctr, Dipartimento Farmaceut, Naples, Italy
[13] Polit Farmaco, Florence, Regione Toscana, Italy
[14] IRCCS Ist Romagnolo Studio Tumori IRST Dino Amador, Meldola, FC, Italy
[15] Assistenza Farmaceut, Direz Cent Salute Polit Sociali & Disabil, Reg Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trieste, Italy
[16] Agenzia Reg San Toscana, Florence, Italy
[17] Univ Roma Tor Vergata, Fac Econ, EEHTA CEIS, SiHTA, Rome, Italy
[18] Italian Med Agcy AIFA, Ufficio Valutaz Econ & Ufficio Registri Monitoragg, Rome, Italy
[19] Direz Farmaceut Protes Disposit Med, Area San & Sociale, Venice, Regione Del Ven, Italy
[20] Univ Piemonte Orientale, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Novara, Italy
[21] ISPOR Italy Rome Chapter, Novara, Italy
[22] Univ Roma Tor Vergata, CEIS Econ Evaluat & HTA EEHTA, Fac Econ, Via Columbia 2, I-00133 Rome, Italy
关键词
Best practices; Budget impact analysis; ISPOR; ECONOMIC-EVALUATION; PRINCIPLES; DEVICES; DRUGS;
D O I
10.33393/grhta.2023.2582
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: The present work aims to discuss the current scenario of procedures and regulations regarding budget impact analysis/models (BIA/BIM) at regional level in Italy and to provide a standardized approach and detailed recommendations for developing these analyses.Method: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to collect existing guidelines or specific regional procedures for budget impact analysis in Italy. All the records were analysed in qualitative terms ac-cording to a pre-specified analytical framework, based on the ISPOR BIA guidelines. At the end of the analysis, a consensus questionnaire was developed to establish agreed approaches and to provide possible solutions to any critical issues. A list of 39 statements was developed. The survey was distributed to 69 experts who rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as more than 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing with any given statement.Results: Sisty-nine experts answered the questionnaire; a total of 30/39 statements achieved consensus. There was agreement on most of the statements. Time horizon to consider and costs were the issues on which no agreement was found. The results allowed the working group to define a list of good practices.Conclusion: While the structure and development of BIM are now well-known and well-applied at national level, there remains a great diversity of management of BIM tools at regional level. Consensus was reached among participating experts, as to the main characteristics, determinants and features of regional BIA/BIM in the per-spective of the Italian payer.
引用
收藏
页码:53 / 61
页数:9
相关论文
共 16 条