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.
Clinician Reported Outcomes
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Clinician Outcomes Assessment
Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Budget Impact Analysis
Thresholds & Opportunity Cost
Trial-based economic evaluation
Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs
Value of Information
Novel & Social Elements of Value
Safety & Pharmacoepidemiology
Prevalence, Incidence, & Disease Risk Factors
Disease Classification & Coding
Approval & Labeling
Pricing Policy & Schemes
Reimbursement & Access Policy
Insurance Systems & National Health Care
Public Spending & National Health Expenditures
Coverage with Evidence Development & Adaptive Pathways
Health Disparities & Equity
Hospital and Clinical Practices
Pharmacist Interventions and Practices
Quality of Care Measurement
Treatment Patterns and Guidelines
Systems & Structure
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Diagnostics & Imaging
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics
Confounding, Selection Bias Correction, Causal Inference
Modeling & Simulation
PRO & Related Methods
Adherence, Persistence, & Compliance
Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction
Health State Utilities
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Patient Behavior and Incentives
Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation
Academic & Educational
Best Research Practices
Geographic & Regional
Data Protection, Integrity, & Quality Assurance
Health & Insurance Records Systems
Distributed Data & Research Networks
Reproducibility & Replicability
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
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ISSUE PANELS
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)