ISSUE: Structured expert elicitation methods are increasingly used to address uncertainties in cost-effectiveness and other analyses. However, doubts regarding their utility have been raised (1). The panel will consider whether expert elicitation is truly useful in addressing uncertainties, or whether it is a costly way of providing false reassurance. OVERVIEW: Expert elicitation is increasingly promoted as a useful method to address important unresolved uncertainties, particularly within cost-effectiveness modelling used to inform formal decision making processes. However, important questions have been raised such as: “do experts understand the questions posed?”, “how much credit should be given to individual priors?” and “are the priors obtained correct?” (1). Given these concerns, the difficulty with interpreting assessed probabilities, and the challenges in reconciling differences between experts that provide judgements, it reasonable to ask whether the time and money invested in a structured expert elicitation exercise might be better spent generating relevant empirical data. Laura Bojke will introduce and moderate the session and Lotte Steuten will present an illustrative elicitation exercise. Alec Morton will argue that methods of expert elicitation are indeed useful, and in some cases could replace complex, uncertain and opaque modelling exercises, and help fill gaps where data is not available. Neil Hawkins will respond that, unless they are clearly underpinned by clearly identified specialised knowledge that is not available to the generalist, elicitation exercises have little value. The audience will be invited to discuss the issues raised and vote on whether ”expert elicitation is a useful addition to the analyst’s toolkit”. •  Heitjan DF. Commentary on Mason et al. Clin Trials. 2017;14(4):368–9.