ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026
Automating cost-effectiveness models with agentic artificial intelligence: Case study and implications for value assessment.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth economic modeling is conceptually sophisticated but operationally repetitive and resource intensive. Recent advances in large language models suggest potential for automating components of cost-effectiveness model development.
objectiveTo evaluate whether an agentic artificial intelligence (AI) system can reliably automate cost-effectiveness model development in the context of targeted therapies for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsWe developed the Agentic Health Economic Modeling Platform (A-HEMP) to construct a cost-effectiveness model for ALK+ NSCLC therapies without access to existing models in that clinical context. Modeling decisions and extracted parameters were compared with a previously published manual cost-effectiveness analysis. A-HEMP automated PICO-based scoping, modeling approach recommendation, systematic literature review, and structured parameter extraction. Performance was evaluated across 3 domains: model structure concordance, evidence identification concordance, and parameter value alignment. Deterministic cost-effectiveness outputs were calculated externally for benchmarking.
resultsA-HEMP identified a modeling framework aligned with the published cost-effective analysis and retrieved all primary clinical trials used for clinical efficacy inputs. Concordance in model structure and assumptions was observed in 27% of modeling dimensions, with 36% partially concordant and 36% divergent. Divergences were most prominent in survival extrapolation and intracranial progression handling. Evidence identification concordance was high for primary clinical trials (100%) but moderate for cost inputs, with 25% of evidence domains fully concordant and 38% partially concordant. Parameter value alignment was high for clinical efficacy inputs and progression-free health state utilities (<2% deviation), whereas greater variability was observed for sicker health states (12% deviation) and downstream disease management costs (25%-55% deviation).
conclusionsAgentic AI can reliably automate upstream components of cost-effectiveness model development. However, nuanced modeling decisions with less standardized methodological guidance remain areas requiring expert oversight. These findings support a hybrid paradigm in which AI augments, but does not replace, health economists in value assessment and formulary decision support within managed care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.