CHOOSE YOUR SITUATION

Back to customer servicesPublic and private health insurers and payers

A service needs assessment. Are the effects and budget supported?

A candidate service and current practice are going to an assessment team or expert committee.

How does this scope address your concerns?

The effectiveness evidence may concern another population, while prices, utilization and long-term effects in the model have unclear sources.

When this scope fits

One defined product or service, comparator and region, with data permissions and economic-review responsibility confirmed.

When the scope needs adjusting

Guaranteed coverage, a fixed procurement price or unsupported numbers used to prove inevitable savings.

REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

Secondary fracture prevention: expose the budget assumptions

Download sample packZIP

Transparent simulation: annual gross programme spend

Unit: CNY

25% uptake75,000 CNY

1,000 × 25% × CNY300

50% uptake150,000 CNY

1,000 × 50% × CNY300

75% uptake225,000 CNY

1,000 × 75% × CNY300

All assumptions: 1,000 eligible people, CNY300/person, one year. Existing costs, benefits and avoided events are excluded; this is not net impact or savings.

Check	Finding / sample content	Use
Budget inputs	Population, uptake and price are assumed	Replace with verified local inputs
Clinical benefits	No avoided-fracture parameter is assumed	Synthesize evidence and assess applicability
Decision uncertainty	Gross spend cannot establish value	Deliver net-impact and sensitivity plan

SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE

NICE · Economic evaluation (PMG36)

Prepared 5 Oct 2026 · Selected references, not an exhaustive systematic search

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

Illustrative scope: 1 service, 1 comparator and 1 region, including clinical synthesis, a budget model and agreed economic review. New clinical trials are excluded.

Pilot references: CNY 200,000–500,000 for an evidence package; complete HTA CNY 300,000–1,000,000 or more. Fictional CNY 300,000 project: 120,000 clinical evidence, 140,000 parameters and model, 40,000 review and report; payments of 90,000/120,000/90,000. Unauthorized data purchases and external experts require separate agreement.

Acceptance criteria

Every important parameter has a source or is labelled as an assumption. The model is reproducible and its dependence on key assumptions is reviewable.

Checking the evidence

Volumes come from the current proposed pilot scope. The budget and scenario are illustrative, not a completed client project or real transaction. A formal quote follows confirmation of scope, data permissions and personnel.
Inputs to confirm: current service and comparator versions, regional payment rules at the time, and authorized cost and utilization data, with a source and date for each parameter.

Workflow and inputs

From inputs to delivery

Explore the workflow and deliverable structure. This preview does not run searches, read real records or produce medical findings.

01 / WORKFLOW PREVIEW

Define the task

Define 1 service, 1 comparator, the region and payer perspective.

Methods, sources and professional responsibilities

THE BASIS FOR THIS SCOPE

Why this approach? Inspect the basis.

Institutional decisions require effect evidence, resources, implementation conditions and local applicability.

OFFICIAL GUIDANCE

WHO Guidelines

World Health Organization

Inspect public-health and clinical guidance

Find WHO guidelines and review the recommendation questions, evidence base and intended settings.

Scope & access conditions

Global guidance is not evidence of local implementation outcomes. Check population, resources, policy and timing.

Open official source

PUBLIC DATABASE

Cochrane

Read systematic reviews and plain-language summaries

Explore a question’s research synthesis and the confidence researchers have in the findings.

Scope & access conditions

Plain-language summaries are public; full-review access varies. Applicability still depends on the population and question.

Open official source

METHOD REFERENCE

GRADE · Cochrane Handbook

Cochrane · Chapter 14

Show effect size and confidence separately

Present important outcomes, relative and absolute effects, available data and certainty, with reasons for downgrading.

Scope & access conditions

GRADE evaluates a body of evidence for a particular outcome. Database inclusion or one study does not automatically establish high certainty.

Open official source

These references support problem definition and evidence appraisal. Your conclusions still require project-specific sources and professional review.

The value of this commissionEOS provides a reproducible model for an agreed local comparison, separating sourced parameters from local unknowns.

Coverage-value and HTA assessmentCompare alternatives and value

Within a limited budget, does this technology justify payment compared with current care?

What to assess	EVERSANA / NICE Advice	Evidence OS · Commissioned scope
Service focus	EVERSANA combines clinical synthesis and economics; NICE Advice supports NHS evaluation preparation.	EOS provides a reproducible model for an agreed local comparison, separating sourced parameters from local unknowns.
When to choose	Their established networks suit multinational access, NHS preparation and extensive modelling.	Example: one service, comparator and region, with clinical tables, a budget model and economic review.

What the fee pays for: Planning reference: CNY 200,000–500,000 for evidence; full HTA from CNY 300,000–1,000,000+, with model depth scoped first.
Value beyond this task: Hand over parameters, code and sensitivity settings for later regional adaptation.
How to assess value: Measure sourced-parameter coverage, reproducibility and review rework; report budget results as uncertain scenarios.

Verify modelling/review capability, data rights and local relevance; consulting is not coverage approval.

CHECK THE OFFICIAL SERVICE SCOPEEVERSANA · HEOR, Value & Evidence NICE Advice · NICE Advice service

Reuse and updates after delivery

A sourced, versioned parameter table and reproducible model provide a baseline for later evidence. Reuse is assessed before moving to another region or comparator.

Agree reuse rights, retention and export periods, and future update fees when scoping.

Questions before commissioning

Can we start without local cost data?

Gaps and explicit assumptions can be documented, but their influence must be shown. Estimates are not presented as verified local costs.

Does this package guarantee coverage?

No. It supplies evidence and models for assessment. Coverage and procurement remain decisions for the relevant bodies and processes.

Can I buy this online now?

Email us your scoping request at no charge. We’ll reply as soon as possible to confirm scope and prepare a quote. Services, professionals, contracts and payment are confirmed separately. This form does not accept medical-record attachments or sensitive images.

Define the delivery for your actual question.

Add your goal, available inputs and timing. Agree scope, review responsibilities and a quote before commissioning.

Request scope & quote

Explore other situations

Public and private health insurers and payers

An assessment and model exist. Does new evidence justify an update?

Quarterly evidence and parameter change logs with impact reasons and model versions. Models change only through approved work within scope.

CNY 300,000–1,000,000+ per yearSee the deliverable

Other tasks in this area

Policy comparison and ongoing support Guideline question updates and monitoring