- Your HEOR team spent months getting the model right, every assumption stress-tested. Then it ships as a spreadsheet with forty tabs. The gap isn't the analysis, it's the handoff.
- A payer committee member is going to see a summary for a few minutes between six other submissions.
- What's the clinical problem. What does the current standard of care cost. What changes with your therapy, and why does the model believe that. Each step visual, each step traceable.
A sound health economics model still needs a story a payer can follow in one sitting. Here's what we found, and what it means for how you build your next story.
01The model isn’t the problem
Your HEOR team spent months getting the model right, every assumption stress-tested. Then it ships as a working file, a spreadsheet with forty tabs. That's the gap. Not the analysis. The handoff.
of the time, physicians read only the abstract of a publication, not the full paper.
MLR review covers every version, however many journeys one approved core holds.
languages one approved core is produced in, without restarting the scientific review each time.
Every figure here is independently sourced.
02A payer reads it once, under time pressure
A payer committee member is going to see a summary for a few minutes between six other submissions that week. If the value story isn’t legible in that window, the rigor underneath never gets the credit it earned.
“If the value story isn’t legible in that window, the rigor underneath never gets the credit it earned.”
03Turn the analysis into a story with a shape
What's the clinical problem. What does the current standard of care cost. What changes with your therapy, and why does the model believe that. Each step visual, each step traceable back to the analysis underneath.
04The review stays exactly as rigorous
Every figure in the visual story maps back to the approved analysis. Zero new claims get introduced in translation. What changes is legibility, not rigor, and legibility is what decides whether the work gets read at all.