ISPOR is strongly committed to diversity. The Society’s Strategic Plan and core values embrace excellence through encouragement and acceptance of diverse ideas, cultures, and disciplines. Research submissions are encouraged from all stakeholders and are evaluated based on merit. ISPOR also aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all endeavors and encourages consideration of diversity in abstract submissions. Diversity dimensions include (but not limited to) gender, career stage, ethnicity, race, education, sexual orientation, region/geographic location, physical disability, and religion. Additional information can be found at the Society’s Diversity Policy.

  • ISPOR issue panels are designed to stimulate real debate on new or controversial topics in health economics and outcomes research or use of outcomes research in healthcare decision making.
  • A successful issue panel will debate an important and/or timely HEOR issue. Each panelist is expected to provide a different perspective on the issue.
  • To assure lively discussion, panelists should be from different institutions and/or work environments.
  • Example of an issue panel proposal submission is available here.


Issue panel submissions should be organized as follows:

  • TITLE: Provide a title that accurately describes the issue and is framed as a question. The title should be in title case. Examples:
    • Multi-Indication Pricing: Do We Want It? Can We Operationalize It?
    • Designing a Patient-Centered Value Framework to Guide Shared Decision Making Oncology: Why, What, and How?
    • Are Existing Health Technology Assessment Requirements Inadequate for Establishing Value for Potentially Transformative Gene Therapies?
    • MODERATOR/PANELISTS: An issue panel is comprised of 1 moderator and a minimum of 2 and maximum of 3 panelists. All moderator/panelists will be asked to provide any previous, relevant speaking/publication experience.
      Moderators maintain communication with panelists and ISPOR staff regarding the development and delivery of the session.
    • To assure lively debate, panelists should be from different institutions and/or work environments representing different perspectives on the debate.
    • Panelists should present distinct views on the topic.
    • Provide the names, degrees, positions, city, state, country and email addresses for the moderator/panelists.
  • SUBJECT FOR DEBATE: A successful issue panel will debate an issue and have multiple perspectives represented by the panelists. Provide the question which will be the subject of the debate.
  • ISSUE: Provide a clear definition of the issue to be presented and debated.
  • OVERVIEW: Provide background information and details on the material to be presented. Include speaker presentation length, e.g., 15 minutes, and state the allotted time to address the audience discussion and debate criterion. It is helpful to include which stakeholders will benefit from attending.
  • LENGTH of PROPOSAL (Issue and Overview): 300 words
  • PANELIST’S PERSPECTIVE: Provide a description of each panelist’s perspective on the debate topic.
    • Example 1: Dr. Glick will discuss challenges in designing a patient-centered value framework, including addressing tensions between the societal and patient perspective. Ms. Sonet will represent patient perspectives, offering insights from patient-centered research conducted by CancerCare. She will highlight factors important to cancer patients and approaches to collecting such information in clinical practice to support a customized patient-centered decision tool. Dr. Phelps will argue that methods such as multi-criteria decision analysis can be used to develop a scoring approach to inform shared decision-making using a customized tool.
    • Example 2: Jaime Caro will argue that the development of open-source models is essential for cost-effectiveness analysis to be viewed as a reliable input to decision making and Renée Arnold will argue that the impact on intellectual property rights, model “ownership”, oversite and, consequently, the incentives and resources available to develop and maintain models are prohibitive.

Clinical Outcomes

Clinician Reported Outcomes

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy

Performance-based Outcomes

Clinician Outcomes Assessment

Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes

Economic Evaluation

Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies

Cost-comparison/effectiveness/utility/benefit Analysis

Budget Impact Analysis

Thresholds & Opportunity Cost

Trial-based economic evaluation

Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs

Value of Information

Novel & Social Elements of Value

Epidemiology & Public Health

Safety & Pharmacoepidemiology

Public Health

Prevalence, Incidence, & Disease Risk Factors

Disease Classification & Coding


Health Policy & Regulatory

Approval & Labeling

Pricing Policy & Schemes

Reimbursement & Access Policy

Insurance Systems & National Health Care

Public Spending & National Health Expenditures

Procurement Systems

Coverage with Evidence Development & Adaptive Pathways

Risk-sharing Approaches

Health Disparities & Equity


Health Service Delivery & Process of Care

Hospital and Clinical Practices

Prescribing Behavior

Pharmacist Interventions and Practices

Formulary Development


Quality of Care Measurement

Disease Management

Treatment Patterns and Guidelines

Health Technology Assessment

Systems & Structure

Value Frameworks & Dossier Format

Decision & Deliberative Processes


Medical Technologies

Medical Devices

Digital Health

Diagnostics & Imaging

Implementation Science


Methodological & Statistical Research

Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics

Missing Data

Confounding, Selection Bias Correction, Causal Inference

Modeling & Simulation

PRO & Related Methods

Survey Methods


Patient-Centered Research

Adherence, Persistence, & Compliance

Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction

Health State Utilities

Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes

Patient Behavior and Incentives

Patient Engagement

Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation


Organizational Practices

Academic & Educational



Best Research Practices

Geographic & Regional


Real World Data & Information Systems

Data Protection, Integrity, & Quality Assurance

Health & Insurance Records Systems

Distributed Data & Research Networks

Reproducibility & Replicability


Study Approaches

Clinical Trials

Pragmatic Trials & Large Simple Trials

Prospective Observational Studies 

Electronic Medical & Health Records


Administrative Claims Data

Surveys & Expert Panels

Decision Modeling & Simulation

Literature Review & Synthesis

Meta-analysis & Indirect Comparisons



Overall, issue panel acceptance is based on the quality of the proposal/debate presented and the topic’s importance for inclusion and discussion in this conference’s scientific program.

Please consider the updated submission criteria when submitting your proposal:

Quality of content

  • Educational value of the session
  • Timeliness of the topic
  • Applicability of content to HEOR practice or principles
  • Effectiveness of incorporated active learning strategies
  • The information/issue presented are novel or innovative
  • Workshop proposals includes examples drawn from multiple sources
  • Unbiased content that does not promote a product, service, or organization; abstracts deemed to be promotional will be excluded from consideration

Quality of proposal

  • Plans for interactivity between the speakers and audience
  • Proposal purpose/issue is clearly defined
  • Issue panel proposals have more than one perspective identified
  • The background information (included in the overview) is clear and concise

Quality of Speakers

  • Expertise/experience of proposed speakers
  • Proposed speakers represent diverse backgrounds (gender, geographic, institutional - refer to ISPOR Diversity policy) and perspectives (multiple organizations are represented)
Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on Update my browser now