Back

Costing Methods for Artificial Intelligence: Systematic Review and Recommended Cost Inventory for in Health Technology Assessment

Lee, J. T.; Shen, T. K.-B.; Liu, V. T.-N.; Chen, T. H.-H.; Lee, C.-C.; Lu, C.; Huang, C.-W.; Atun, R.

2025-10-28 health economics
10.1101/2025.10.27.25338867 medRxiv
Show abstract

Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare are expanding rapidly, yet underlying costing methods remains heterogenous, and frequently incomplete for health technology assessment (HTA) and policy decision-making. In our systematic review of 55 studies published between 2010 and 2025, we found that fewer than half of the studies reported explicit costing methods; most pricing analyses failed to describe the basis of fees, subscription terms, or duration of coverage; and few analyses distinguished between average and incremental costs or accounted for economies of scale. Lifecycle expenditures--including development, validation, integration, maintenance, retraining, and decommissioning--were largely omitted, while electricity consumption, data hosting, and cloud infrastructure costs were almost never considered. Sensitivity analysis was the exception rather than the norm, and reporting of cost offsets such as reduced hospital admissions or workforce time savings was inconsistent. To address these gaps, we propose a 20-item reporting checklist to standardise the costing and pricing of AI interventions. The checklist complements existing HTA frameworks while capturing features unique to AI, such as continuous retraining, reliance on data infrastructure, and recurrent maintenance. We also introduce an AI Costing Inventory and Calculator that operationalises a lifecycle approach, enabling systematic recording of resource use, unit costs, inflation adjustments, and total and incremental costs, including offsets. These tools extend the emerging CHEERS-AI reporting framework by embedding a lifecycle perspective into costing, thereby enabling consistent estimation of resource and cos components and strengthening the methodological foundations of AI economic evaluation for policy use.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.2%
2
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.6%
4
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
5
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.8%
9
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
10
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
1.9%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
15
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.5%
16
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
17
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
19
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 39%
1.0%
21
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
27
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
28
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
30
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%