Methoden vergelijken

	Budget Impact Analysis (BIA)	Kosten-batenanalyse (KBA)
Vakgebied	Gezondheidseconomie	Gezondheidseconomie
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	2005	1970s
Grondlegger	Sullivan, Mauskopf, and colleagues (ISPOR task force)	Boardman, Greenberg, and colleagues (welfare economics)
Type	Method	Method
Oorspronkelijke bron	Sullivan, S. D., Mauskopf, J. A., Augustovski, F., et al. (2014). Budget Impact Analysis—Principles of Good Practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value in Health, 17(1), 5-14.	Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice (5th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aliassen	BIA, financial impact assessment, budget consequence analysis	CBA, economic appraisal, benefit-cost ratio
Verwant	5	5
Samenvatting	Budget impact analysis estimates the financial consequences (net costs or savings) of implementing a new health technology in a specific healthcare system or population over a short time horizon (typically 1–5 years). Distinct from cost-effectiveness analysis (which compares health outcomes per dollar), BIA answers a budgetary question: 'If we adopt this new drug/device, how much will it cost our health system next year?' Widely used by hospital procurement committees, insurance formularies, and government health budgets to assess financial feasibility and reimbursement decision.	Cost-benefit analysis compares the total monetary value of benefits produced by a program against its total monetary costs, reporting net present value (NPV) or benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Rooted in welfare economics and used extensively in public policy (transportation, environmental, education, health), CBA answers the question: 'Is this program worth doing from a societal perspective?' Unlike cost-effectiveness analysis, CBA monetizes both costs and benefits, enabling comparison across disparate program types.