Capability
Economic modeling
Economic models are only as credible as the clinical and real-world inputs behind them. We build pricing, access, and revenue logic that leadership can use in the boardroom—and that HTA and payer reviewers will not dismiss as disconnected from the trial program.
Payers and HTA bodies see hundreds of models; they remember the ones whose inputs could not survive cross-examination. We emphasize traceability from trial data to utilities, from comparators to market shares, and from sensitivity analyses to governance—so economics reinforces the clinical story instead of fighting it.
The economics challenge
Pricing and market access decisions increasingly depend on modeled outcomes: cost per QALY, budget impact, and threshold analyses under different utilization assumptions. Models built too late—or on heroic inputs—collapse under payer review, wasting HEOR spend and eroding trust with access colleagues who must defend the numbers in the field. Conversely, models disconnected from the registrational program miss the chance to shape endpoints and PROs that would have made health economics easier.
The best economic work is integrated: clinical development, medical affairs, and HEOR share assumptions, limitations, and scenario plans. We help teams build that integration so leadership sees economics as a strategic lever, not a post hoc spreadsheet exercise.
Where we focus
Model structure and HTA fit
We align model type—cohort Markov, partitioned survival, discrete event, budget impact—with the review environment and data you actually have. That includes horizon choice, discounting conventions, perspective (healthcare payer versus societal), and explicit handling of crossover, immature survival data, and subsequent therapy lines.
Clinical and utility linkage
We map trial endpoints to health-state definitions and utility values, documenting mapping studies, expert elicitation, or published sources. Where data are thin, we surface the risk transparently and design sensitivity plans that leadership can interpret—not single-point ICERs that hide uncertainty.
Pricing, contracting, and revenue scenarios
We build scenario trees for list price, rebates, carve-outs, and competitive entry—linked where possible to access research and epidemiology. Outputs are tuned for board decisions: which assumptions move NPV most, and which are under your control versus exogenous.
Communication and defense
We produce executive summaries, payer-facing one-pagers, and appendix structures that reviewers can navigate. That includes plain-language limitation statements and “red team” rehearsals for HTA clarification and appeals.
What we deliver
- Conceptual model outlines and assumption logs before full build, to align stats and medical on feasibility.
- Cost-effectiveness and budget-impact model specifications suitable for internal build or CRO handoff.
- Comparator and market-share frameworks grounded in epidemiology and access intelligence.
- Sensitivity and scenario analysis plans tied to governance milestones.
- Board and investor materials explaining drivers, uncertainties, and strategic implications—not just outputs.
- Integration memos linking model inputs to payer dossier and RWE plans.
Outcomes you can expect
- Earlier detection of economic “fatal flaws” in endpoint or comparator choices.
- Models reviewers treat as serious because inputs match the trial and label story.
- Clearer pricing and contracting trade-offs under competitive and access pressure.
- Less rework when clinical data or labels shift—because structure and assumptions were documented.
How we work
We collaborate tightly with clinical and payer strategy so the model tells one story. That means challenging weak inputs early—placeholder utilities and comparator choices that will not survive scrutiny—and documenting plans before the first base-case run. The deliverable is defensible decision support, not a single polished ICER.
lotor lab bridges HEOR jargon and development reality. We work with your internal health economists and external vendors; our role is to tighten logic, align narratives, and keep economics in the same constellation as regulatory and access evidence.
When teams bring us in
- Pre-Phase 3 or pre-submission, to stress-test whether the evidence plan can support price and access goals.
- HTA submissions, appeals, or negotiations after prior economic work failed credibility tests.
- Portfolio and franchise reviews requiring consistent comparison of assets and indications.
- Launch preparation when contracting simulations must align with dossier and field narratives.