OBJECTIVES: As part of an ongoing project into the status of modeled claims in pharmacoeconomics, economic evaluation papers published in Value in Health between January and December 2015 were assessed. The purpose was to assess the extent to which the modeled claims met the standards of normal science. METHODS: A total of 16 papers were evaluated. Key questions were: (i) was the model capable of generating testable claims; (ii) did the author(s) attempt to generate testable claims; (iii) did the author(s) suggest how the claims might be evaluated; and (iv) did the author(s) caution readers as to the implications of generating non-testable claims. RESULTS: In total, 14 of the 16 papers presented model outcomes in cost per QALY terms; however, only 5 of the papers presented results which had the potential for empirical assessment. The remainder presented results which were either patently unevaluable (e.g., lifetime cost per QALY) or the modeled timeframe was unlikely to be of interest to decision makers (e.g., over 3 years). None of the author(s) attempted to generate testable predictions or suggest how the claims might be evaluated; none of the authors qualified their discussion of study limitations by advising that, in the absence of testable claims and an evaluation protocol, there was no basis for considering whether the claims made were either right or even if they were wrong. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the economic evaluation papers published in this 12 month period failed to meet the standards of normal science. Value in Health should be encouraged to review the standards it accepts in modeled claims, informing authors of the need to generate claims that are testable in time frames relevant to health care decision makers, and avoid claims (e.g., QALYs) that create an added burden on claims assessors.