Cost-Effectiveness Model
Pubrica develops cost-effectiveness and cost-utility models for pharmaceutical and medical device companies preparing submissions to HTA agencies. Our health economists and modellers select a model structure suited to the disease, extrapolate survival with all candidate distributions reported, explore uncertainty in full and document every assumption where a reviewer can find it. Each model is built to the reference case of the target agency. You receive the working model file, a technical report and a completed CHEERS checklist.
- Structure chosen for the disease: partitioned survival, state transition or discrete event, selected and justified for the disease
- Survival extrapolation with the alternatives shown, because the choice of curve is usually the largest single driver of the result
- Built to the target reference case: perspective, discount rate, time horizon and outcome measure set by the target agency
- Validated and documented to ISPOR–SMDM good practice, with a technical report that a reviewer can audit
- Working model handed over: you receive the working model and the documentation needed to run it
Structure justified and builtIncluded
Survival extrapolation testedIncluded
Deterministic and probabilistic analysisIncluded
Technical report and handoverIncluded
Selecting inputs to reach a target resultNever
Structure → inputs → built → validated → handed over
- Structure justified for the disease
- Extrapolation alternatives shown
- Built to the target reference case
- Validated to ISPOR good practice
- Working model delivered with documentation
Deliverables
Four Components of Every Cost-Effectiveness Model
Every model produces a result, and its acceptance depends on how clearly each step towards that result can be justified.
From the technical reportCommittees ask why a structure was chosen. A model justified only by precedent is unlikely to satisfy them.
From the survival analysisNICE DSU Technical Support Document 14 sets out the expected approach and is the standard a UK reviewer will apply. Presenting only the chosen curve leads the committee to assume that the alternatives were less favourable.
From the analysisStructural uncertainty is the type most likely to change conclusions and the type most often omitted. A tornado diagram does not test whether a different structure gives a different answer.
From the handoverA model that only its author can operate becomes difficult to use during clarification rounds, when it must be rerun quickly to a deadline.
The samples shown are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Compliance and Standards
Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Standards and Guidelines
Good practice guidance is published, and a model that departs from it should explain why.
ISPOR–SMDM good practices (modelling)
The seven-report series on model conceptualisation, state-transition and discrete event structures, parameter estimation, and the validation and transparency standards that HTA committees use to assess models built by others.
CHEERS 2022 (reporting economic evaluations)
The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standard. Its twenty-eight items cover model structure, inputs, assumptions, uncertainty and conflicts, and reviewers and HTA bodies increasingly ask to see the completed checklist.
NICE evaluations manual (the reference case)
A 3.5% annual discount on costs and health effects, an NHS and personal social services cost perspective, results at GBP 20,000 and GBP 30,000 per QALY, and the severity modifier that replaced the end-of-life criteria.
Quality management (cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N)
Our certified system for running, recording and releasing project work.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use in Cost-Effectiveness Modelling
Health technology assessment submissions are examined in detail by assessors. Every structural assumption, input and source must be attributable, which is why NICE has published a position on AI in submissions and why traceability is the main requirement.
Why We Do Not Publish an AI Accuracy Figure
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote a self-generated accuracy figure, because it would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
Methodology
Cost-Effectiveness Model Development Process
We confirm the reference case first, because it determines the perspective, the discount rate and the outcome measure.
Reference case and concept
We confirm the target agency, establish its reference case and agree the model concept with clinical input before building begins.
Inputs and evidence
We source and document efficacy, utilities, resource use and costs, with the derivation of each input traceable to its origin.
Build and validation
We build the model, check it for internal consistency, test it against extreme values and compare it with published models and observed data where available.
Reporting and handover
We write the technical report, complete the CHEERS checklist and deliver the working model with a training session for the team who will run it.
Our Experts
Your Health Economic Modelling Team
A named team of subject specialists stays with your project from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member by name before work begins.
Determines what the work can claim. Each expert is matched to your topic and tells you clearly when the evidence does not support the intended conclusion.
Responsible for all quantitative decisions. Advises before the analysis begins whether the data can answer the question, and delivers the code so that the analysis can be re-run independently.
Identifies and retrieves the sources the work is built on. Writes the search strategy line by line for each platform and delivers it dated and reproducible.
Reviews the work independently of the first pass and reconciles the two, because most errors in this work are transcription errors. Disagreements are logged and adjudicated by a third reviewer.
Packages
Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Packages
Pricing depends on the disease area, the model structure and whether the inputs already exist.
Model development
For a new economic model
Quoted per projectBased on disease area and structure
Delivery By scope
- ✓Structure justified and agreed
- ✓Inputs sourced and documented
- ✓Survival extrapolation tested
- ✓Deterministic and probabilistic analysis
- ✓Technical report and CHEERS checklist
- ✓Working model handed over
Please tell us the target agency before we start. It determines the perspective and the discount rate, and changing these later requires a rebuild.
Deliverables Request a quoteAdaptation to a market
For adapting an existing model to a new agency
Quoted per projectBased on markets and the differences between reference cases
Delivery By scope
- ✓Reference case differences identified
- ✓Costs and utilities localised
- ✓Comparator changed where the market requires it
- ✓Re-validated after adaptation
- ✓Report updated for the new agency
Adaptation goes beyond translation. A different reference case can change the model structure as well as the inputs.
Deliverables Request a quoteIndependent model review
Before submission or after an agency critique
Quoted per projectBased on model size and complexity
Delivery By scope
- ✓Structure and assumptions assessed
- ✓Calculations checked independently
- ✓Extrapolation choices tested
- ✓Reference case compliance verified
- ✓Findings reported clearly
A review costs less before submission than after, and an agency critique is a public document.
Deliverables Request a quoteSend an existing model and we will check its structure and reference case compliance independently and free of charge, and tell you which questions a reviewer is likely to raise first.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions About Cost-Effectiveness Models
If your question is not listed here, ask an expert. No quote is required.
Use the software your team can maintain and your agency accepts. Excel remains the most widely accepted submission format and is what most HTA reviewers expect to open.
R is better suited to survival analysis and probabilistic work, and the two are often combined, with the analysis in R, the model in Excel and the link between them documented.
Yes. You receive the working file and the technical report. The model is not held by Pubrica or licensed back to you.
This is particularly important during clarification rounds, when the model must be rerun quickly to your deadline.
We fit candidate distributions, compare them on statistical fit and clinical plausibility, and report all of them rather than only the preferred one.
NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14 sets out the expected approach, and a reviewer applying it will look for any alternatives that were not presented.
No. Inputs are sourced and justified, and the model reports the result they produce.
Where the result is unfavourable, we can identify which assumption drives it and whether evidence could legitimately support a different assumption.
Related Services
Related Market Access Services
A cost-effectiveness model draws on evidence from several related services.
1SUPPORTING EVIDENCEbuilt first
Payer evidence reviewSystematic review and indirect comparison. BiostatisticsSurvival analysis of trial data.2SUBMISSIONSdownstream
HTA submission dossierWhere the result is presented to the agency. Budget impact modelThe affordability analysis that accompanies it.3HEALTH ECONOMICSrelated services
Health economicsHEOR across the product life cycle. Global value dossierWhere the economic evidence is documented.Request a Free Structural Review of an Existing Model
We will identify the questions a reviewer is likely to ask, so that you can address them before submission.