A Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new health technology from the payer’s perspective over a short time horizon (typically 1-5 years). Unlike cost-effectiveness analysis, BIA focuses on affordability, not value for money. ParCC implements the ISPOR BIA Good Practice framework.
You are advising a state health insurance programme on adopting a new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) to replace warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Covered population | 10,000,000 enrolees |
| AF prevalence | 0.8% (80,000 patients) |
| Eligible for anticoagulation | 60% of AF patients (48,000) |
| Uptake trajectory | Yr 1: 10%, Yr 2: 25%, Yr 3: 45%, Yr 4: 60%, Yr 5: 70% |
| Current therapy (warfarin) | INR 8,000/patient/year (drug + INR monitoring) |
| New therapy (NOAC) | INR 22,000/patient/year (drug only) |
| Discount rate | 3% per year |
The BIA compares two scenarios:
\[BI_t = N_{target} \times Uptake_t \times (C_{new} - C_{current}) \times \frac{1}{(1+r)^{t-1}}\]
ParCC produces:
ISPOR recommends 1-5 years, matching the payer’s budget cycle. Longer horizons introduce too much uncertainty in uptake projections.
Real-world adoption follows an S-curve, not instant switching. Conservative estimates in early years are more credible. ParCC allows independent specification for each year.
The primary BIA should be undiscounted (set rate to 0%) since payers care about actual cash flows. Discounted results can be presented as a secondary analysis for consistency with CEA.
ParCC uses a static population (same eligible count each year). For diseases with significant incidence/mortality, a dynamic population model may be needed – this is beyond ParCC’s current scope.
The ISPOR 2012 Task Force recommends: