Secondary fracture prevention: expose the budget assumptions
Real sources · Illustrative request · Sample version
Customer question
Hypothetical commission: a payer compares a regional new service with current care and examines one-year programme spending.
How does uptake change gross programme spending, and where do benefit inputs come from?
The sample calculates programme spending first. Avoided fractures and net budget effects require clinical evidence and local utilization/costs.
Transparent simulation: annual gross programme spend
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.
Analysis excerpt
| 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 |
Delivery manifest
| File | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical synthesis and applicability | Effects and limitations for one service and comparator | |
| Budget model and parameter register | XLSX | Formulas, local inputs, assumption labels and reproducible scenarios |
| Economic review memorandum | Agreed review, structural uncertainty and decision questions |
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
- Every important parameter has a source or is labelled as an assumption. The model is reproducible and its dependence on key assumptions is reviewable.
Sources
- NICE · Economic evaluation (PMG36)
https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/economic-evaluation-2