Update the model only when inputs or conclusions warrant it
Real sources · Illustrative request · Sample version
Customer question
Hypothetical commission: a payer monitors two existing service evaluations for prices and new trials.
Which parameter changes, and is an agreed model update warranted?
Quarterly scans first explain changes; model updates remain distinct from complete reassessments.
Parameter changes to version decisions
| Check / stage | Chart content |
|---|---|
| Preserve baseline | Old inputs, source dates and model version |
| Assess new information | Check price/trial applicability and fields affected |
| Update or retain | Record triggers within two agreed model updates |
Fictional workflow, not observed input changes or policy effects. Existing scope: two services, four quarterly briefs and two in-scope model updates.
Analysis excerpt
| Check | Finding / sample content | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical input | New trials may not match the original population | Record applicability and non-adoption rationale |
| Model version | Retain the old version | Compare inputs and outputs |
| Trigger decision | Scanning does not automatically charge for updates | Confirm out-of-scope reassessment |
Delivery manifest
| File | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Quarterly change briefs | Four briefs: new information, parameter mapping and no-change records | |
| Source and parameter versions | XLSX | Old/new sources, dates, applicability and triggers for two services |
| Agreed model update package | XLSX / PDF | Two in-scope updates, version comparisons and four discussions |
This is an illustrative formal delivery manifest. This pack supplies an HTML report, CSV tables and a source register. Agree formal formats, quantities and scope in the quote.
Acceptance criteria
- Each scan records coverage and changes to conclusions. Monitoring is not automatically presented as a complete new HTA.
Sources
- NICE · Economic evaluation (PMG36)
https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/economic-evaluation-2