The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis
Abstract
Many factors related to the spread and progression of diseases vary throughout a population. This heterogeneity is frequently ignored in cost-effectiveness analyses by using average or representative values or by considering multiple risk groups. The author explores the impact that such simplifying assumptions may have on the results and interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses when Markov models are used to calculate the costs and health impact of interventions. A discrete-time Markov model for a disease is defined, and 5 potential interventions are considered. Health benefits, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated for each intervention. It is assumed that the population is heterogeneous with respect to the probability of becoming sick. Ignoring this heterogeneity may lead to optimistic or pessimistic estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios, depending on the intervention and, in some cases, the parameter values. Implications are discussed of this finding on the use of league tables and on comparisons of cost-effectiveness ratios versus commonly accepted threshold values.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Variables that affect transition probabilities but are not known at decision time, such as genetic mutation and undiagnosed infection, can create heterogeneity bias, and inclusion of such variables should be considered.
“Variables that affect transition probabilities but are not known at decision time (e.g., genetic mutation and undiagnosed infection) can create "heterogeneity bias" [45,46], and inclusion of such variables should be considered.”
From State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3 (2012) · cites this paper as [46]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.014 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x12455463 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zaric, G. S.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Zaric, Gregory S.
- ORCID
- Zaric, Gregory S.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 379-386
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2129285512
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Keywords
- population heterogeneity, Markov model, cost-effectiveness analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, disease progression, risk groups, health interventions, league tables, cost-effectiveness threshold
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Status, Humans, Markov Chains, Population, Life Tables, Models, Econometric
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review