Jahn B, Todorovic J, Bundo M, Sroczynski G, Conrads-Frank A, Rochau U, Endel G, Wilbacher F, Malbaski N, Popper N, Chhatwal J, Greenberg D, Mauskopf J, Siebert U. Budget impact analysis of cancer screening: A methodological review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Aug;17(4):493-511. doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00475-6

BACKGROUND: Budget impact analyses (BIAs) describe changes in intervention- and disease-related costs of new technologies. Evidence on the quality of BIAs for cancer screening is lacking.

OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed the literature and methods to assess how closely BIA guidelines are followed when BIAs are performed for cancer-screening programs.

DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE and EconLit databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs published in English, 2010-2017.

Standardized evidence tables were generated to extract and compare study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force.

RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified evaluating screening for breast (5), colorectal (4), cervical (3), lung (1), prostate (2) and skin (1) cancers. Model designs included decision-analytic models (11) and simple cost calculators (5). From all studies, only 50% reported costs for a minimum of three years, 56% compared to a mix of screening options, 38% reported model validation, and 38% reported uncertainty analysis for participation rates. The quality of studies was independent of cancer-site.

LIMITATIONS: “Gray” literature was not searched, misinterpretation is possible due to limited information in publications, and focus was on international methodological guidelines rather than regional guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights considerable variability in the extent to which BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs followed recommended guidelines. The annual budget impact at least over the next three to five years should be estimated. Validation and uncertainty analysis should always be conducted. Continued dissemination efforts of existing best practice guidelines are necessary to ensure high-quality analyses.

Share on: