Methodological choices applied to analytical models and their influence on the results of economic evaluations and health decision making: a case study

Abstract

Economic evaluations are based on theoretical models that seek to represent reality. Its objective is the efficient allocation of resources available for health, and it is therefore a requirement for the incorporation of health technologies. There is scarce literature on flaws and methodological choices that can change the results of cost-effectiveness analyses. In this article, we discuss how the choice of parameters and the definition of assumptions incorporated into decision analysis models can influence the results and conclusions of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyzes and, consequently, the allocation of health resources. In order to do so, we discuss three cases, where we observed that the choice of prevalence estimation, test specificity and the time horizon generated divergent cost-effectiveness results. What motivates the different choices can be very diverse; we here warn of the risk of interest-based choices of promoting a new technology.