No abstract

We recommend a framework for the BIA, provide guidance on the acquisition and use of data, and offer a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific BIA guidelines but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.

Models--mathematical frameworks that facilitate estimation of the consequences of health care decisions--have become essential tools for health technology assessment. Evolution of the methods since the first ISPOR Modeling Task Force reported in 2003 has led to a new Task Force, jointly convened with the Society for Medical Decision Making, and this series of seven articles presents the updated recommendations for best practices in conceptualizing models; implementing state-transition approaches, discrete event simulations, or dynamic transmission models; and dealing with uncertainty and validating and reporting models transparently. This overview article introduces the work of the Task Force, provides all the recommendations, and discusses some quandaries that require further elucidation. The audience for these articles includes those who build models, stakeholders who utilize their results, and, indeed, anyone concerned with the use of models to support decision making.

Trust and confidence are critical to the success of health care models. There are two main methods for achieving this: transparency (people can see how the model is built) and validation (how well the model reproduces reality). This report describes recommendations for achieving transparency and validation developed by a taskforce appointed by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making. Recommendations were developed iteratively by the authors. A nontechnical description--including model type, intended applications, funding sources, structure, intended uses, inputs, outputs, other components that determine function, and their relationships, data sources, validation methods, results, and limitations--should be made available to anyone. Technical documentation, written in sufficient detail to enable a reader with necessary expertise to evaluate the model and potentially reproduce it, should be made available openly or under agreements that protect intellectual property, at the discretion of the modelers. Validation involves face validity (wherein experts evaluate model structure, data sources, assumptions, and results), verification or internal validity (check accuracy of coding), cross validity (comparison of results with other models analyzing the same problem), external validity (comparing model results with real-world results), and predictive validity (comparing model results with prospectively observed events). The last two are the strongest form of validation. Each section of this article contains a number of recommendations that were iterated among the authors, as well as among the wider modeling taskforce, jointly set up by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making.

The BIA is important, along with the CEA, as part of a comprehensive economic evaluation of a new health technology. We propose a framework for creating budget impact models, guidance about the acquisition and use of data to make budget projections and a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these proposed good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific budget impact guidelines, but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.