Cited by 4Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Environmental ValuationSimulation Techniques and Applications

A New Method for Model-Based Health Economic Evaluation Utilizing and Extending Moment-Generating Functions

Open access
Snowsill, Tristan·2019·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Background. Health economic evaluations frequently include projections for lifetime costs and health effects using modeling frameworks such as Markov modeling or discrete event simulation (DES). Markov models typically cannot represent events whose risk is determined by the length of time spent in state (sojourn time) without the use of tunnel states. DES is very flexible but introduces Monte Carlo variation, which can significantly limit the complexity of model analyses. Methods. We present a new methodological framework for health economic modeling that is based on, and extends, the concept of moment-generating functions (MGFs) for time-to-event random variables. When future costs and health effects are discounted, MGFs can be used to very efficiently calculate the total discounted life-years spent in a series of health states. Competing risks are incorporated into the method. This method can also be used to calculate discounted costs and health effects when these payoffs are constant per unit time, one-off, or exponential with regard to time. MGFs are extended to additionally support costs and health effects which are polynomial with regard to time (as in a commonly used model of population norms for EQ-5D utility). Worked Example. A worked example is used to demonstrate the application of the new method in practice and to compare it with Markov modeling and DES. Results are compared in terms of convergence and accuracy, and computation times are compared. R code and an Excel workbook are provided. Conclusions. The MGF method can be applied to health economic evaluations in the place of Markov modeling or DES and has certain advantages over both.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x19860119

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):667-77. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12454577 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cooper N, Sutton A, Ades A, Paisley S, Jones D. Use of evidence in economic decision models: Practical issues and methodological challenges. Health Econ. 2007;16(12):1277-86. doi: 10.1002/hec.1297 · DOI
  3. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  4. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253-8.
  5. Woods B, Sideris E, Palmer S, Latimer N, Soares M. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 19. Partitioned survival analysis for decision modelling in health care: a critical review 2017. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/.
  6. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17(5):479-500.
  7. Strong M, Oakley JE, Brennan A. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a nonparametric regression approach. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(3):311-26. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13505910 · DOI
  8. Ren Y. The methodology of flowgraph models: a thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London: London School of Economics and Political Science; 2011.
  9. Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health. 2010;13(5):509-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1524- 4733.2010.00700.x · DOI
  10. Larson MG, Dinse GE. A Mixture Model for the Regression Analysis of Competing Risks Data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics). 1985;34(3):201-11. doi: 10.2307/2347464 · DOI
  11. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Moller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force- 4. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):701-11. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12455462 · DOI
  12. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1999;94(446):496-509. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Nicolaie MA, van Houwelingen HC, Putter H. Vertical modeling: A pattern mixture approach for competing risks modeling. Statistics in Medicine. 2010;29(11):1190-205. doi: 10.1002/sim.3844 · DOI
  14. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678-89. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12454941 · DOI
  15. Filipović-Pierucci A, Zarca K, Durand-Zaleski I. Markov Models for Health Economic Evaluation: The R Package heemod. ArXiv e-prints. 2017;1702.03252.
  16. Snowsill T. A new method for model-based health economic evaluation utilising and extending moment-generating functions: Example model. Open Research Exeter. 2019. doi: 10.24378/exe.643 · DOI
  17. Barendregt JJ. The half-cycle correction: banish rather than explain it. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(4):500-2. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09340585 · DOI
  18. Krijkamp EM, Alarid-Escudero F, Enns EA, Jalal HJ, Hunink MGM, Pechlivanoglou P. Microsimulation Modeling for Health Decision Sciences Using R: A Tutorial. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(3):400-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18754513 · DOI
  19. Royston P, Parmar MK. Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2002;21(15):2175-97. doi: 10.1002/sim.1203 · DOI
  20. van Rosmalen J, Toy M, O'Mahony JF. A Mathematical Approach for Evaluating Markov Models in Continuous Time without Discrete-Event Simulation. Medical Decision Making. 2013;33(6):767-79. doi: 10.1177/0272989x13487947 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Davis P, Rabinowizt P. Methods of numerical integration. New York: Academic Press; 1975.
  22. DeVore R, Scott L. Error-bounds for Gaussian quadrature and weighted-L1 polynomial approximation. SIAM J Numer Anal. 1984;21(2):400-12.
  23. Stoer J, Bulirsch R. Introduction to numerical analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Snowsill, T.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Snowsill, Tristan
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2019-07
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
523-539
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2963477364
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Simulation Techniques and Applications
Keywords
moment generating function, health economic evaluation, Markov model, discrete event simulation, sojourn time, competing risks, discounted cost, EQ-5D utility
MeSH terms
Economics, Medical, Humans, Markov Chains, Models, Economic, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

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