Back

Efficient patient-level health economic modelling in Excel without VBA: A Tutorial

Blissett, R. S.; Sullivan, W.; Subban, I.; Igloi-Nagy, A.

2025-06-20 health economics
10.1101/2025.06.18.25329835 medRxiv
Show abstract

Cohort-level models in Microsoft Excel(R) remain the standard for cost-effectiveness modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA), despite calls and rationale for more flexible approaches. Their limited ability to capture patient-level characteristics can, in the presence of patient heterogeneity or the need to track patient characteristics to accurately capture a technologys implications, introduce bias. Their continued prevalence is explained by key stakeholders familiarity with spreadsheet software, and the lower computational burden of cohort-level versus patient-level models. However, contemporary Excel functions have opened up possibilities for efficient calculations within native Excel that enable more flexible, patient-level approaches to be implemented in familiar spreadsheet-based software. Therefore, this tutorial aims to provide step-by-step guidance on how to implement a previously published and freely available individual-level discrete event simulation (DES) in Excel, using contemporary Excel functions and without any Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) code. Key Points for Decision-MakersO_LIPerceived and real requirements for cost-effectiveness models for HTA to be built in Excel may have led to overuse of cohort-level approaches, with probable bias implications for HTA decision-making. C_LIO_LIContemporary Excel functions now allow the efficient implementation and execution of patient-level model calculations within native Excel, without any VBA code. Such capabilities may reduce technical barriers across key stakeholders, enhance transparency, and ultimately lead to improvements in HTA decision-making. C_LIO_LIThis tutorial demonstrates provides step-by-step guidance on how to implement an efficient patient-level cost-effectiveness model in Excel without any VBA, with an executable model example included as supplementary material. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.8%
2
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.1%
5
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
4.1%
6
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
7
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
8
Statistics in Medicine
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.3%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
11
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
12
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
13
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
14
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
15
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Journal of Medical Economics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
17
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
19
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
20
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
23
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
24
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
25
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
26
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%