The Option Value of Delay in Health Technology Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Processes of health technology assessment (HTA) inform decisions under uncertainty about whether to invest in new technologies based on evidence of incremental effects, incremental cost, and incremental net benefit monetary (INMB). An option value to delaying such decisions to wait for further evidence is suggested in the usual case of interest, in which the prior distribution of INMB is positive but uncertain. METHODS: of estimating the option value of delaying decisions to invest have previously been developed when investments are irreversible with an uncertain payoff over time and information is assumed fixed. However, in HTA decision uncertainty relates to information (evidence) on the distribution of INMB. This article demonstrates that the option value of delaying decisions to allow collection of further evidence can be estimated as the expected value of sample of information (EVSI). For irreversible decisions, delay and trial (DT) is demonstrated to be preferred to adopt and no trial (AN) when the EVSI exceeds expected costs of information, including expected opportunity costs of not treating patients with the new therapy. For reversible decisions, adopt and trial (AT) becomes a potentially optimal strategy, but costs of reversal are shown to reduce the EVSI of this strategy due to both a lower probability of reversal being optimal and lower payoffs when reversal is optimal. Hence, decision makers are generally shown to face joint research and reimbursement decisions (AN, DT and AT), with the optimal choice dependent on costs of reversal as well as opportunity costs of delay and the distribution of prior INMB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".