Methoden vergelijken

	Budget Impact Analysis (BIA)	Kosten-effectiviteitsanalyse (KEA)
Vakgebied	Gezondheidseconomie	Gezondheidseconomie
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	2005	1984
Grondlegger	Sullivan, Mauskopf, and colleagues (ISPOR task force)	Drummond & Stoddart (Health Economics Research Group, McMaster University)
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.	Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aliassen	BIA, financial impact assessment, budget consequence analysis	CEA, ICER, Incremental Cost-Effectiveness 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-effectiveness analysis compares the incremental cost per unit of health benefit gained by one intervention relative to a comparator (standard care or best alternative). Developed rigorously in the 1980s by Drummond, Stoddart, and colleagues, CEA is now the standard framework for technology appraisal globally. NICE, HAS, CADTH, and other health technology assessment bodies use CEA to decide which treatments warrant public funding and at what price.