Excel VBA has been a staple for health economists for decades. While critics argue it’s outdated, many of us still use it daily. This blob post cuts through the debate to explain where VBA still works, where it’s falling short, and how AI tools are reshaping, but not replacing, its role.
Why Excel VBA Still Holds Its Ground
VBA’s biggest advantage is its seamless tie to Excel, the go-to tool for most health economists. When building cost-effectiveness analyses, VBA lets users automate tasks directly within spreadsheets. There’s no need to switch to new software or rebuild workflows, which saves time and avoids disruption. This is especially useful when collaborating with stakeholders who expect Excel files, not abstract code.
Cost and accessibility also play a role. VBA comes free with Excel, making it a practical choice for teams with tight budgets or limited coding expertise. Junior analysts can record a simple macro to automate repetitive tasks, like sensitivity analyses, without needing advanced programming skills.
Institutional habits and reviewer requirements also lock VBA in place. Healthcare authorities evaluating reimbursement submissions often lack the technical expertise to audit models built in languages like R or Python. This forces pharmaceutical and consulting companies to submit analyses in Excel, even if they’d prefer modern tools. Reviewers frequently demand Excel files for their perceived transparency. For many organisations, sticking with VBA isn’t about preference, it’s about meeting submission standards and a “safe” choice.
The Growing Weaknesses of VBA
VBA works well for small tasks, but falters under heavier demands. For example, running complex uncertainty analyses with hundreds or even thousands of parameter can easily crash Excel or produce errors. Large datasets, like real-world patient data, strain VBA’s capabilities, leading to slow performance and hard-to-find bugs.
Collaboration is another hurdle. VBA macros lack built-in tools for tracking changes in team projects. Unlike modern coding platforms, VBA doesn’t integrate with version control systems, making it messy to manage or track edits from multiple users. Journals and regulators increasingly require reproducible models, and tangled, undocumented VBA code can undermine a study’s credibility.
Most importantly, AI is stepping into roles VBA once filled. Excel’s Power Query now automates data cleaning without macros, and AI plugins like AICURE check formulas for errors. These tools don’t erase VBA’s value, but they narrow its niche to tasks that require custom Excel automation.
AI’s Role: A Partner for VBA
AI isn’t replacing VBA, it’s enhancing it. Tools like GitHub Copilot can generate VBA code from plain English commands, helping non-experts automate tasks without memorising syntax. AI-powered plug-ins can also audit macros for errors, reducing the risk of mistakes in critical models.
Meanwhile, cloud-based AI services let VBA pull and update real-world data into Excel, such as updating drug prices from online databases. The future of VBA lies in hybrid workflows. Imagine using VBA to build a cost-effectiveness model, with an AI tool that checks the math or links to external survival data.
What Should Health Economists Do Next?
Excel VBA remains a key tool for health economists building cost-effectiveness and budget impact models, and automating probabilistic sensitivity analyses. These tasks require fluency in Excel and VBA, which are essential for preparing submissions to agencies that still mandate Excel-based submissions.
However, AI tools like GitHub Copilot can now enhance VBA workflows. For example, you are able generate VBA scripts or audit macros for errors in Markov models. This reduces manual coding effort while maintaining Excel’s status as the submission standard.
Excel VBA may not be the future of health economic modelling, but its current relevance and foundational value are undeniable. By pairing it with modern AI tools, you can leverage the best of both worlds.
See also the latest Excel VBA Jobs for health economist.
