Ivanova J.I.,Analysis Group Inc. |
Kelkar S.,Analysis Group Inc. |
King S.,Analysis Group Inc. |
Birnbaum H.G.,Analysis Group Inc. |
And 3 more authors.
Journal of Medical Economics | Year: 2015
Objective: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic disease with a substantial clinical and economic burden. This study estimated the potential budget impact (BI) associated with market entry of Sweet Vernal, Orchard, Perennial Rye, Timothy, and Kentucky Blue Grass Mixed Pollens Allergen Extract Tablet for Sublingual Use (5-grass SLIT tablet) for patients aged 10-65 with grass pollen-induced AR. Methods: A budget impact model was constructed to estimate the potential BI from a US payer perspective. The model calculated pharmacy, medical, and total (pharmacy + medical) costs per-member-per-month (PMPM) with and without market entry of the 5-grass SLIT tablet, considering a 3-year time horizon. The target population was determined using an epidemiological approach and existing literature. The treatment market shares without 5-grass SLIT tablet entry were derived from an analysis of de-identified insurance claims data. Pharmacy costs and medical utilization rates and costs were obtained from the claims data analysis and existing literature. One-way sensitivities were conducted for key model inputs. Results: Using an illustrative example of a hypothetical health plan with one million members, the estimated target population of AR patients aged 10-65 was 26,320. On a PMPM basis, pharmacy costs increased by $0.36, $0.44, and $0.51, while total costs (after medical cost offsets) increased by $0.15, $0.18, and $0.22 in the first, second, and third years following entry of the 5-grass SLIT tablet, respectively. Results were most sensitive to changes in the compliance rate, treatment duration, and price. The BI will vary from the base case example when alternative, payer-specific inputs are used. Conclusions: Using base case inputs, use of the 5-grass SLIT tablet to treat grass pollen-induced AR increased the pharmacy budget for a hypothetical third-party payer. Higher pharmacy costs were partially offset by lower medical budget due to reduced resource use compared with existing treatments. © 2015 Informa UK Ltd. Source