BEYOND HEALTHCARE COSTS: A PROOF-OF-CONCEPT STUDY TO ASSESS PUBLIC FINANCE BUDGET AND PRODUCTIVITY VALUE OF BIOLOGIC TREATMENT FOR SEVERE TYPE 2 ASTHMA IN FRANCE
Author(s)
Samuel Seksik, MSc1, Winona Bolislis, MA2, Florence JOULAIN, PhD3, Christine Harrison, BA4, David Elvira, PhD2, Thierry Rigoine de Fougerolles, MA5, Guillaume Perquier, MSc5, Anne-Lise VATAIRE, PhD1, Anne-Laure Tardy, PhD3.
1HEOR France, Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 2Corporate Public Affairs and Policy, Sanofi, Paris, France, 3Global HEVA Speciality care, Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 4Global Public Affairs, Specialty Care, Sanofi, Boston, MA, USA, 5CVA, Paris, France.
1HEOR France, Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 2Corporate Public Affairs and Policy, Sanofi, Paris, France, 3Global HEVA Speciality care, Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 4Global Public Affairs, Specialty Care, Sanofi, Boston, MA, USA, 5CVA, Paris, France.
OBJECTIVES: Direct health-related budget impacts of biologic therapies have been widely assessed since their introduction to clinical practice. However, evidence of their impact on public expenditures, revenues, and broader productivity effects remains scarce and underexplored. This proof-of-concept study explores these dimensions in patients with uncontrolled severe type 2 asthma eligible to biologic therapy in France.
METHODS: A cohort-based decision-tree model followed patients aged 12 years and older (mean age 48 years) over five years, comparing standard of care (SOC) with SOC and an add-on biologic therapy. The framework encompasses three pillars as follows. The “direct healthcare cost budget pillar” included direct medical costs from healthcare use. The “public finance budget pillar” included tax revenues, government transfer costs related to social contributions, and transfers associated with disability, unemployment, and retirement. The “productivity pillar” reflected work absenteeism and chronic presenteeism. Results are expressed as a return multiple of discounted gains over investments (ROI). Minimum and maximum thresholds consider the uncertainty in the outcome measures.
RESULTS: Each €1 allocated to treatment generated a return of €3.2 (€2.2 net of treatment cost): €0.2 [€0.2-0.2] in “direct healthcare cost budget” value, €0.2 [€0.1-0.3] in “public finance budget” value, and €2.8 [€2.5-3.4] in “productivity” value. Returns were predominantly driven by the latest which pushed the ROI above the 1.0x breakeven threshold. As productivity outcomes remain understudied, these results should be interpreted cautiously, as some estimates rely on proxy data.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that comprehensive economic evaluation of therapeutic interventions should extend beyond direct healthcare costs to encompass broader public finance and productivity dimensions, which can significantly impact overall value. Despite uncertainties, this framework offers a foundation for more holistic value evaluation of innovative therapeutics. The study underscores the need for standardized methodological guidance and robust evidence generation to validate this proof-of-concept approach.
METHODS: A cohort-based decision-tree model followed patients aged 12 years and older (mean age 48 years) over five years, comparing standard of care (SOC) with SOC and an add-on biologic therapy. The framework encompasses three pillars as follows. The “direct healthcare cost budget pillar” included direct medical costs from healthcare use. The “public finance budget pillar” included tax revenues, government transfer costs related to social contributions, and transfers associated with disability, unemployment, and retirement. The “productivity pillar” reflected work absenteeism and chronic presenteeism. Results are expressed as a return multiple of discounted gains over investments (ROI). Minimum and maximum thresholds consider the uncertainty in the outcome measures.
RESULTS: Each €1 allocated to treatment generated a return of €3.2 (€2.2 net of treatment cost): €0.2 [€0.2-0.2] in “direct healthcare cost budget” value, €0.2 [€0.1-0.3] in “public finance budget” value, and €2.8 [€2.5-3.4] in “productivity” value. Returns were predominantly driven by the latest which pushed the ROI above the 1.0x breakeven threshold. As productivity outcomes remain understudied, these results should be interpreted cautiously, as some estimates rely on proxy data.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that comprehensive economic evaluation of therapeutic interventions should extend beyond direct healthcare costs to encompass broader public finance and productivity dimensions, which can significantly impact overall value. Despite uncertainties, this framework offers a foundation for more holistic value evaluation of innovative therapeutics. The study underscores the need for standardized methodological guidance and robust evidence generation to validate this proof-of-concept approach.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE577
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment, Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Novel & Social Elements of Value, Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs
Disease
Biologics & Biosimilars, Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory)