Session (CTI)

Patient engagement in value assessment has advanced considerably, yet its integration into economic modeling remains the exception rather than the rule. Most economic models continue to rely on clinician-driven assumptions, generic utility instruments, and representations of disease that may not fully reflect patients’ lived experiences and priorities. While emerging examples demonstrate that engagement can shape model structure, outcome selection, and interpretation, the field lacks agreement on what meaningful patient-centered modeling should look like and whether this evolution strengthens or challenges methodological rigor. This panel will debate the central issue: Should lived experience play a greater role in shaping the analytical components of economic models, or remain primarily advisory? If involvement is to extend beyond reviewing lay summaries, key questions arise: How should patient-identified outcomes be incorporated when they fall outside traditional cost-per-QALY frameworks? When does lived experience justify revisiting structural assumptions? How might patient-informed perspectives influence cost-effectiveness results, equity considerations, and uncertainty analysis? And what safeguards are needed to prevent bias, double-counting, or unintended scope expansion? Building on recent research and global practice, panelists will explore both opportunities and tensions: ensuring methodological rigor while improving relevance, enhancing legitimacy without compromising internal validity, and identifying scalable approaches to embed patient insights across the modeling lifecycle. Ultimately, this panel asks: if future economic models are co-created with patients, how should this be operationalized in practice? What principles, safeguards, and governance structures are required to integrate patient-generated inputs while maintaining transparency, rigor, and fairness?