IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i3d10.1007_s40273-021-01110-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Four Aspects Affecting Health Economic Decision Models and Their Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Talitha Feenstra

    (Groningen University, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM))

  • Isaac Corro-Ramos

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Dominique Hamerlijnck

    (Patient Expert, Dutch Lung Foundation)

  • George Voorn

    (Wageningen University and Research)

  • Salah Ghabri

    (French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS))

Abstract

Health care decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness analysis based on health economic decision models for policy decisions regarding coverage and price negotiation for medicines and medical devices. While validation of health economic decision models has always been considered important, many reviews of model-based cost-effectiveness studies report limitations regarding their validation. The current opinion paper discusses four aspects of current health economic decision modeling with relevance for future directions in model validation: increased use of complex models, international cooperation, open-source modeling, and stakeholder involvement. First, new, more complex clinical study designs and treatment strategies may require relatively complex model structures and/or input data analyses. Simultaneously, more widespread technical knowledge along with wider data availability have led to a broader range of model types. This puts extra requirements on model validation and transparency. Second, increased international cooperation of policy makers and, in particular, health technology assessment (HTA) authorities in performing model assessments is discussed in relation to the repeated use of health economic models (multi-use disease models). We argue such coordinated efforts may benefit model validity. Third, open-source modeling is discussed as one possible answer to increased transparency requirements. Finally, involvement of all relevant stakeholders throughout the whole decision process is an ongoing development that necessarily also includes health economic modeling. We argue this implies that model validity should be considered in a broader perspective, with more focus on conceptual modeling, model transparency, accuracy requirements, and choice of relevant model outcomes than previously.

Suggested Citation

  • Talitha Feenstra & Isaac Corro-Ramos & Dominique Hamerlijnck & George Voorn & Salah Ghabri, 2022. "Four Aspects Affecting Health Economic Decision Models and Their Validation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 241-248, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01110-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01110-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01110-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-021-01110-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Shahzad Ghanbarian & Amin Adibi & Kate Johnson & J. Mark FitzGerald & William Flanagan & Stirling Bryan & Don Sin, 2019. "Development and Validation of the Evaluation Platform in COPD (EPIC): A Population-Based Outcomes Model of COPD for Canada," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(2), pages 152-167, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elizabeth G Bond & Lusine Abrahamyan & Mohammad K A Khan & Andrea Gershon & Murray Krahn & Ping Li & Rajibul Mian & Nicholas Mitsakakis & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Teresa To & Petros Pechlivanoglou & for t, 2020. "Understanding resource utilization and mortality in COPD to support policy making: A microsimulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01110-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.