Which is not an underlying assumption of a theoretical model of costs and health outcomes?

Question

Options

• AThe relevant outcome is the overall health of a population rather than of an individual.
• BIt is possible to quantify health at a population level.
• CIt is necessary to focus on health outcomes, those aspects of health status directly under the
• DIt is impossible to reduce cost without also reducing health outcomes.

• A
  2% (1)
• B
  10% (6)
• C
  5% (3)
• D
  84% (53)

Explanation

Option D is the correct answer because theoretical cost-outcome models are built on the assumption that trade-offs are possible - that efficiency gains can reduce costs without necessarily sacrificing health outcomes. Asserting it's impossible to do so would undermine the entire purpose of cost-effectiveness modeling.

Why the distractors are valid assumptions (and therefore wrong answers):

• A is a genuine assumption: these models operate at the population level, not the individual patient level, enabling broader resource allocation decisions.
• B is a genuine assumption: quantifying health (e.g., via QALYs - Quality-Adjusted Life Years) is mathematically necessary for any cost-outcome model to function.
• C is a genuine assumption: models must focus on measurable, outcome-relevant indicators of health status to remain analytically tractable.

Memory tip: Think of D as the "Defeatist" option. Theoretical cost models exist precisely to find efficient solutions - the whole field of health economics assumes you can do more (or equal) with less. If D were true, there would be no point building the model at all.

No community discussion yet for this question.