August 3, 2026
Welcome to Perspectives, a signature podcast series from The Leerink Center for Pharmacoeconomics. Hosted by Dr. Mel Whittington, a health economist and Head of the Center for Pharmacoeconomics, we will be hearing from individuals across the industry to better understand and appreciate the societal impact of healthcare innovations.
Melanie Whittington: All right. Hi everyone. Welcome back. Today we’re going to get into if health economics can lead to better biotech. And to talk about this, I’m joined by Rob Abbott, CEO of ISPOR, which is the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR). And you might be thinking that HEOR is something that happens after a drug is approved and is only for commercialization. But what Rob and I are going to talk about is if development stage companies and biotech investors should be thinking about HEOR. So, Rob, I’m pumped for this conversation. Can you kick us off by just giving us a little bit of background on you? And you know, what led you to ISPOR?
Rob Abbott: Well, firstly, Mel, it’s a great pleasure to be here. And thanks for that context setting introduction, because I think it does provide a fantastic platform for the conversation I think you and I can have today. In terms of myself and what drew me to ISPOR, I think this is really a reflection of my own long-standing passion for improving global human welfare, as well as the intersection of business, society and health care policy. And ISPOR, as you’ve characterized it as the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, which is very appropriate, but for me in particular, the attraction to ISPOR is the global platform. ISPOR is headquartered in the US but is a global society with members and chapters across over one hundred countries. And so, for me, the ability to leverage here in service of improving health care policy is ultimately what led me to join ISPOR.
Melanie Whittington: I love it, yeah. I’ve been fortunate to go to ISPOR meetings in the US and internationally. A lot of my exposure to outside the US is through ISPOR, and so I certainly relate to the global presence. And innovation is global. So having organizations like ISPOR and a global presence is really important. For listeners that aren’t health economists, how do you describe ISPOR? Besides its global presence, what is the importance or the relevance of ISPOR?
Rob Abbott: Probably the most succinct way I would capture that is to say that fundamentally, ISPOR is a professional society that is dedicated to making health care systems across the world more accessible, more effective, more efficient for all. On a day-to-day basis, I would suggest our focus is twofold. Promoting affordable and high-quality care for patients and using scientific evidence to shape health policy. And if I was going to add a third, I would say enlarging our engagement efforts to ensure that we’re having strategic conversations with all players in the health care ecosystem in service of making healthcare more accessible and so forth.
Melanie Whittington: I’ve been an ISPOR member for fifteen years now, I think. It’s remarkable to see how much our world of HEOR has changed in those fifteen years, but also just how the entire health care industry has changed and thinking about what types of innovation we’ve seen in those fifteen years. And so how has ISPOR’s role evolved or maybe even ISPOR’s audience changed over that time?
Rob Abbott: A great question, Mel. And it really does reflect the evolution not only of ISPOR, but really the evolution of health economics and outcomes research as a profession. And so, yes, I would assert that the role and audience has changed or evolved significantly over the last decade, and maybe especially in the last three to four years. And the headline would probably be something like this. I think that we’ve shifted from being seen to be a niche academic and health economics group to a much broader, multi-stakeholder authority that is actively shaping health policy globally. Now, in terms of the role, I think that our focus has moved from producing rigorous scientific models to translating those models into actionable, real-time insights for public health and pricing policy. And that might seem like a subtle distinction, but I think it’s a really important one. So we still curate that scientific modeling and that scientific evidence, but we’re now spending proportionately more time on the translation piece.
Melanie Whittington: I love that, and if I think about how I have evolved over those fifteen years of being an ISPOR member, I think my career started very academic in nature and thinking about how can we use research and evidence, you know, to make the world a better place. And then that translation piece has been the next step in my career. Who does this need to get in front of? And how can we make sure what we’re coming up with is relevant to other stakeholders in this ecosystem? That’s what’s drawn me to the Leerink Center for Pharmacoeconomics. The earlier parts of my career were very focused on how do we use HEOR to promote efficiency and appropriate resource allocation and really thinking about the opportunity costs. To then also asking how can we also make sure there’s innovation and efficiency? I want to pivot the conversation a little bit to thinking about innovation and the stakeholders that we typically think of in the innovation ecosystem, starting with biotech CEOs and executives and, and then to investors. But maybe let’s start with, you know, the biotech CEOs and biotech companies. If you were explaining HEOR to a biotech CEO and, you know, many of these CEOs are scientists, clinical experts, very focused on developing a safe and effective new drug. How would you explain HEOR in one minute?
Rob Abbott: I love this question. So HEOR is the strategic science that proves your drugs worth by measuring effectiveness, cost and patient quality of life. It’s not a late-stage checklist item. It’s your commercial compass that answers investor and payer questions on market value long before launch. In simple terms, that’s the message to the biotech CEO. Now, if I can take just a tiny bit more time, I would say that here are some quick examples of what I mean. And, and it varies a little bit, but I can tell you that over the last two or three years, I’ve had a number of biotech CEOs come up to me at ISPOR events. So firstly, it’s exciting that they’re coming to ISPOR. But it’s also really interesting because they want to talk with me about the role that HEOR might play for them. And we’ll probably get into some of the nuances of that in a few minutes. But in terms of that core message to the biotech CEO, I usually say, look, you know, cost of illness and burden of disease models. This is the kind of work that we do. This can show investors real commercial traction. Payers ultimately need proof of value, not just clinical efficacy to fund reimbursement. And early data alignment can shape smarter trials and clear market differentiation. So for me, it’s very much about saying, HEOR can be your strategic partner in helping you articulate a case not just for clinical efficacy, but ultimately for commercial value.
Melanie Whittington: I love that. And one thing you said at the very beginning of it was it can tell you what the worth is. And I think, you know, a primary understandable focus is will the product work? I think that requires a lot of bandwidth and capital and focus. But there’s also that second of, well, is the product worth it that, you know, it’s probably less discussed, less emphasized, but is really at the center of health economics and outcomes research. And one other thing that you had said was how broad HEOR is and you talked about cost of illness and economic burden studies. I think that is a really sweet spot for this audience. It’s a misperception thinking that health economics is purely cost effectiveness analysis for HTA or building economic models. That is only one lane. There’s other ways to infuse HEOR principles into drug development and to biotech investment. And I think that burden of illness and unmet need is a really interesting niche and area of alignment.
Rob Abbott: Just if I can add something, Mel, because I completely agree with you and I think the common ground to a certain extent is that so many members of ISPOR are economists at heart. And when I talk to a biotech CEO, you know, he or she has that scientific pedigree to a certain extent, but they’re fundamentally driven by an entrepreneurial energy as well. And the common ground usually lies in the idea that there’s an unacceptable equilibrium. You know, there’s an unmet need and a new drug could meet that need or displace the current incumbent. And I think that this is where HEOR can really be seen to be that strategic partner that, you know, we can help with early-stage strategy and assist you in identifying what those clinical end points really should be, and how that in turn is going to shape phase two, phase three trial design and so forth.
Melanie Whittington: I completely agree. So, I should acknowledge you and I are probably biased. You and I both see the value of HEOR, but we’re both probably a little biased that our careers are anchored in HEOR. So, I want to kind of put ourselves in the shoes of a biotech CEO. And so, let’s say, you know, you’re running a development stage pre-revenue company and you have limited capital. You have to figure out how you’re going to allocate those dollars. And so, you could use that capital to invest in another trial or some form of other clinical evidence generation strategy. Or you could begin investing in the things that you talked about, things like payer evidence, economic modeling, or other types of HEOR work. So, what’s the argument for HEOR? Why should HEOR compete for those dollars?
Rob Abbott: So, another great question, very real question. I would argue that HEOR should compete for limited capital because it directly proves value. And that ultimately enables market access and funding. So, there’s a couple of things here and there related to reimbursement driving pricing strategy and proving commercial viability. So, payers require local cost effectiveness proof before they will pay for a drug. Strong economic models, which is what HEOR provides, you know, will help to prevent a company’s drug from being blocked or restricted on hospital lists. Early data, you know, can stop you from running a trial that proves efficacy but fails to justify price. And it’s critically important, I would say, for those early-stage companies to understand that VCs and partners, they’re looking for a clear path to profit, not just clinical success. So, the economic modeling that HEOR can provide shows how your drug saves money elsewhere in the health care system as well, such as reducing hospital stays. So, I’m not saying that HEOR needs to vacuum up all of that capital, but I think HEOR needs to be seen to be a partner, and you need to be strategically investing in HEOR early and then throughout the lifecycle of your product development process.
Melanie Whittington: Yeah. One other argument that I like to give for HEOR is I think biotech executives and biotech investors chose healthcare as their career for a reason, and that they care about making the world a better place. They care about impact. They care about improving patients’ lives and leaving society better than it was yesterday. And that’s what I think is a real untapped opportunity. And something where HEOR can easily fill. Sometimes talking about price can get a little sensitive. Let’s just think about impact. Like impact is so core to HEOR and I think is so aligned with all stakeholders in that we want to make the world a better place. How can we use quantitative tools to forecast and think about impact?
Rob Abbott: Yeah. I mean, you know, I’m reminded of, you know, my reason for coming to ISPOR in the first place. I mean, my academic and professional career has really focused on how do we lift people out of poverty? How do we improve human welfare globally? How do we improve health care globally? Because I think in the US and elsewhere, sometimes it’s easy to fall into the acceptance that the status quo is the status quo. You know, healthcare is a luxury. It’s not something that should be universally available and so on. And I completely disagree. I think that we have the tools, we have the methods, and we can make health care more accessible, effective, efficient and affordable for everyone. And this is where and why I want to bring HEOR to a much, much wider audience of stakeholders so that more and more people understand, oh, if I use a little bit of that, that’s going to enable me to get to market quicker. It’s going to enable me to disrupt the system in a positive way and so forth.
Melanie Whittington: Yeah. And that’s been one thing that I’ve been excited to see come out of ISPOR over the last couple of years. I’m sure you’ve probably been very involved with this and that is thinking about the ROI of HEOR. And that’s something that to speak candidly, I think our field needs to do a better job of. And so, I’m glad ISPOR is doing that and other folks are as well.
Rob Abbott: Yeah. I think that it’s very easy. And I have a great deal of empathy for, you know, long term health economists who are really focused like a laser beam on developing, you know, the discipline, as it were. And, you know, I think a way of thinking about it now is to say that the metaphorical finish line for our profession has moved. We still need to do all of that modeling. We still need to curate that scientific evidence, but we need to understand that if we’re going to improve health care decision making, we actually need to talk to the decision maker, and we need to talk to them in a way that is very relatable. And so that translation piece, you know, without diluting the science, translating that science into a policy brief, for instance, and sitting down with a decision maker in Washington or Brussels or elsewhere. That’s what’s going to ultimately make the difference in moving the system or systems plural forward.
Melanie Whittington: Absolutely. So, over the last couple of minutes, we’ve talked about a lot of different types of HEOR activities. And that’s what’s cool about HEOR, right? Like there’s so, so many methods, so many objectives. There’s not just one single lane. There’s a lot you can do. And that’s what’s fun about going to ISPOR conferences is you have like a value assessment track, a real-world evidence track, and an AI track. You know, like there’s, there’s so much that HEOR encompasses, but if you could only choose two HEOR activities, just two that you could say, hey, every development stage company should consider these before starting a phase three. Which two would you choose? If you want three, you can choose three but try to do two.
Rob Abbott: So, I’m sure some friends and colleagues are going to be upset with me because I’m not highlighting their particular niche. I think this is actually, you know, very easy, particularly for the early development stage before phase two, phase three. Early economic modeling, number one, and integrating patient reported outcomes into clinical trials, number two. I mean those two things define the product’s value proposition and secure necessary data before pivotal later trials begin. So, you know, let’s break that down a tiny bit. Early economic modeling to build initial cost effectiveness or budget impact models using phase two data to understand target product price thresholds, spot missing data gaps required by health technology assessment groups so that you can capture them early, and use model outputs to address trial parameters like those. Those are obvious benefits to me from the early economic modeling, and they pay huge dividends for that early development stage biotech. And then in terms of integrating patient reported outcomes, this is how we embed health related quality of life and functional instruments directly into clinical protocols. So, you know, there’s a lot more that I could say about this, but, if you have limited time and resources, those are the two things to focus on.
Melanie Whittington: I agree completely. I want to echo the early modeling. That’s where I’ve received some traction. When I talk to this group, you often hear, oh, you know, in the US, we don’t use cost effectiveness explicitly for price setting. And that’s the largest market. So why do I need to do CEA? I think a good counter argument to that is to use economic modeling to test pricing acceptability and to identify the key drivers of the value proposition. I’m not saying price at some threshold, but say like, hey, these two clinical endpoints drive the value proposition. So those better be in that phase three. And then the patient reported outcomes. I think we always have to remember the ultimate consumer is the patient, right. And so, if it’s not aligned with their interests or evidence isn’t collected as to why this is valuable to them, then how are we addressing that ultimate consumer?
Rob Abbott: Well, you know, and back to an earlier question, about ISPOR’s audience. One of the things which I’m really proud is that our audience now very intentionally integrates the patient perspective and the patient voice. And this is something that, you know, it’s often easy to get lost in the detail. But at the end of the day, the ultimate user is the patient and the patient’s family and caregivers. And if we sort of begin with that end in mind, and again, back to the early development stage biotech, you need that modeling to inform the decisions and choices you’ll make along the life cycle. And you need to keep that patient perspective in mind. So, draw that forward and get that perspective early to shape some of those decisions and choices you’ll make.
Melanie Whittington: Absolutely. Okay, so we talked a little bit about biotech companies and executives. I now want to pivot to the investor side. I think most investors spend enormous amounts of effort evaluating the biology and the clinical data and the management team composition, all really important things. But how much attention should they be paying to thinking about reimbursement, economic value and policy? Where does that come in?
Rob Abbott: I so appreciate the venture investor perspective, whether that’s your classic VC or private equity or anything in between. I would argue that they should pay attention to reimbursement policy and economic value creation. And in particular, I think they should be focusing on coding and coverage pathways, health economic data, and value-based alignment. Those factors dictate commercial survival more than pure scientific novelty. So, if we think about this a little bit, some of the critical commercial factors would be, you know, securing an active billing code. Um, because that’s ultimately going to determine if a product gets paid for at all. Payers demand clear data showing cost savings or improved outcomes over the current standard of care. And this is an area in which a surprisingly large number of biotechs, I think, fall short. And understandably, they’re very busy. They’re preoccupied with a variety of things. But, you know, knowing clearly and being able to clearly articulate how your product is going to be better than the current standard of care matters a lot. Government regulations and legislative changes can instantly open or close major healthcare markets. So, there’s this interesting mix of commercial or what I’ll characterize as commercial factors that I think need to be considered very closely by investors. At the same time, you know, there needs to be a really clear payor reimbursement strategy before closing early-stage financing rounds and clinical trial designs need to be tested to ensure that they collect specific economic data that major insurers require. And so, these are just some of the considerations that investors need to be aware of so that they can be engaging in more meaningful conversations with the management teams of these biotech companies that they’re seeking to back.
Melanie Whittington: Oh, I love that. So, there was a lot there I’m trying to pick out very easy and tangible things for investors to take out of this and say, okay, I’m going to do this. And so similar to the question I asked about biotech CEOs and like two things they should be doing before phase three, are there one or two questions that investors should start asking management teams that would get at some of those commercial value proposition angles that aren’t related to clinical evidence?
Rob Abbott: Yeah. I’m putting my management consulting hat on because as you know, I spent several years, working in the management consulting game, so to speak. And I love these kinds of questions. So, I think it comes down to querying management teams about what I’ll call operational stress points, the real cost of new technologies and structural vulnerabilities. So here are just a couple of my favorites. Is current growth driven by a repeatable, systematized process or does it rely on founder or executive heroics, so to speak? Because this really gets to the question of internal controls. Are we actually building a management system that will survive management team personnel? Or are we really dependent on the founder? Where are we most vulnerable if a major competitor or an incumbent ships our core feature set tomorrow. What does that do for us, and how would you, as a management team, describe what breaks first in the business during a severe macro or operational stress event? And maybe a fourth would be if you had to rebuild your internal forecasting model from scratch starting today, what long term assumption or assumptions would you change? So those are some of the questions that I think investors should be asking management teams that they might not be asking today.
Melanie Whittington: I love that. Okay, I’m going to take note of all of those. I want to circle back to something you said earlier, and I think it was the word differentiation. That’s where I also feel like I’ve made some progress and am seeing potential interest in HEOR as to how can HEOR be this tool in investors and executives toolbox of like, how do we show our product is different and why is it special? And how can we kind of benchmark or anchor on either the standard of care or some currently approved treatment? How can we use these methods to differentiate that? It’s a competitive industry and how are we going to differentiate? And I think the HEOR proposition can be really important there.
Rob Abbott: And I think that, you know, ultimately it comes down, I think to the, the narrative or the story. And yes, we need the underlying biology, we need the underlying evidence of efficacy and value. But ultimately, like, how do we tell that story. You know, like what is the nature of the story that we are going to tell, you know, prospective patients or payers or government agencies? Yes, there’s a dependence and a need for underlying data. But ultimately, you know, we’re telling a story about enabling people to live lives of greater abundance and greater opportunity, lives that enable them in a way that they aren’t at present. And I think HEOR can be that that trusted advisor or partner that helps to flesh out that story or that narrative.
Melanie Whittington: And I think it goes back to what I said earlier about impact. Every single one of us who entered this field did it for a living and to make an impact. And so how can you use HEOR to be that storyteller, to be that narrator and link it back to impact? Because I think we all are really guilty of just getting into the day to day of, okay, this is what I need to do today. These are the things that are really pressing on the to do list. And sometimes we have to do things or, you know, work on things that are beyond the immediate day to day and are maybe more industry level. Maybe it doesn’t even have a direct benefit for that investor or for that company, but it’s still important to do for the industry so people do see that innovation is a miraculous thing that can improve people’s lives.
Rob Abbott: Well, and you know, the thing too, to keep in mind for anybody, you know, listening and watching is that spending small amounts on early burden of disease or real-world evidence models can provide massive leverage before committing millions of dollars on trials. So, when I talk about like you should be saving some of that capital for HEOR, I believe that to be true. It doesn’t necessarily take a huge amount of capital in the early stages, but that can have a really important leverage effect later on.
Melanie Whittington: Absolutely. So, we’ve talked about biotech companies, we’ve talked about investors. Now I want to talk about health economists and outcomes research a little bit more. You know, these are the typical members of ISPOR. Some kind of criticism I often hear from biotech executives and investors is that they think health economics is primarily used to support lower drug prices. And I know you and I probably don’t agree with that, but like, how would you answer that? If you hear from folks that health economics is used to lower drug prices, why should I invest my capital in doing that, what’s your response?
Rob Abbott: Yeah, you know, I hear this probably more than I want to. I think that it’s at best only a partially fair criticism. Because here’s the thing, you know, health economics evaluates overall value and resource allocation. And, you know, policy pressures often quote unquote, weaponize it. You know, for price containment or price, you know, discussions that are frankly, beyond the purview of HEOR. So, I would say, look, the core purpose of health economics is to, you know, measure clinical benefits against total resource use using metrics like quality adjusted life years. And we can talk a little bit about that if you want to. It’s not perfect, but ultimately, we’re trying to determine if a particular treatment is efficient. And he or she looks beyond the drug invoice to calculate long term savings, whether that’s reduced hospitalizations, fewer costly surgeries, overall societal productivity, and so on. Now, I get why executives and investors worry. But I would say that governments and insurers use health technology assessments restrictively. You know, they can treat cost effectiveness thresholds as hard caps to force price concessions rather than to reward broad societal value. That can happen. That’s a different decision than an HEOR decision. So, I think it’s important to make that distinction between HEOR and policy or political decision making.
Melanie Whittington: Yeah. I agree, and I also get this question asked more than I would like it to be asked, and I think where I’ve been landing lately is, you know, value is subjective and health economics is subjective, right? Like what you put into it, how good your evidence is, the answer can vary. And so, I think it kind of depends on who is doing it. And so, if other stakeholder groups really lean into health economics, acknowledging that a different story can be told with different evidence, with different decisions. And so, if we can back that up with evidence and rationale, then if there are more voices in that conversation, maybe we would hear less of that criticism.
Rob Abbott: And to be clear, one of the reasons that I’ve been very, very active in, you know, opening ISPOR up, so to speak, to other players in the health care ecosystem or the health care landscape, is that I actually want to have these discussions. I mean, I know for investors that are listening, that they might say, wow, you know, price controls and negotiations, you know, could signal that high-risk breakthrough R&D, you know, might face capped financial returns. And that’s obviously going to restrict or threaten early-stage capital flow. So, I get that concern. And that’s why I want to bring, you know, as many of these players together as possible to talk about these issues. And this is where I think ISPOR is seen to be a neutral third-party convener that can bring these different voices together to talk through some of these concerns.
Melanie Whittington: Yes. And I want to kind of double click on a few things you said there related to ISPOR as a convener and the importance of that. But I want to ask one question before I do that. And it kind of relates to the value and the importance of multiple voices talking about value and the importance of multiple stakeholder groups doing HEOR. I remember when I finished my doctorate, shortly after that, there was an ISPOR special task force report on what has now become famously known as the ISPOR value flower. And I think that was my first real exposure to like value could vary. And this is not a perfect science. I saw something once on LinkedIn that said this isn’t physics. HEOR is not physics. This is a tool. Jon Campbell always says this is a tool, not a rule. I love that. And so that’s somewhere where I think ISPOR has been a great voice is helping bring together experts and think about, well, what if things were done differently. How do we define value? And so, I think it is a kind of a natural convener for new ideas and big ideas.
Rob Abbott: Well, and different voices as well. Because the way in which, you know, many health economists might think about value is, is quite narrow. The way in which patients might think about value is, is quite different. And the way in which payers and other regulators think about value is different yet again. So, I think what’s really important is to say whatever kind of analysis we do, we want that to be underpinned by as much data as possible and as many voices as possible. And we want to do some sensitivity analysis in terms of, okay, like if we tweak this just a little bit in this way, what does that do for the model as a whole and the outcome? So, for me, this is what is so fascinating about health economics and outcomes research.
Melanie Whittington: I agree. And I think it does require more voices, more engagement, more translation, more listening. So now I want to go back to the great point about ISPOR as a convener. So, we are seeing more interaction between biotech investors, development stage companies, ISPOR and the HEOR community. I’m clearly a big fan of that. ISPOR is hosting a healthcare investment summit next month, September 2026. What was the idea behind creating that meeting? What conversations are going to happen there?
Rob Abbott: So, you know, I’m fully culpable here because this was something that I sort of, you know, brought to my team and said, look, here’s the idea. What if we could bridge the gap between financial capital and health economics and in so doing, help investors and innovators understand how pricing policy and reimbursement dictate whether a medical therapy ultimately succeeds. And that kind of, you know, started the ball rolling in terms of what we might do in terms of engaging with the investor community. I would say beyond that idea, you know, the core purpose is acknowledging that policy and drug pricing, both in the US and elsewhere, keep changing. So, investors need a deeper grasp of market access. And, and when I talk about market access, I’m talking about, you know, coding, pricing, etc. HEOR helps guide money toward innovations that offer real value. I mean, that’s a takeaway for me and what I aspire to do. And we’ve been experimenting with this throughout 2026 linking investors, drug developers and policymakers to tackle real world financial and evidence challenges like what do investors really need to know to de-risk their investments? What do biotech CEOs need to do to demonstrate value, and what are the policymakers expecting as these entrepreneurs, these scientists, entrepreneurs bring product forward? So that’s kind of the basic idea behind our engagement with the investor community and most especially our first of its kind healthcare investment summit, in San Francisco next month.
Melanie Whittington: Yeah, I can’t wait. The program is really great. I encourage anyone listening to check out the program. We’ll link it in the show notes. I’m moderating a panel, so I’ll give a little plug for that. I think it’s called, metrics behind the money, the health economic playbook for builders and backers. It’s going to be a great panel. I’m moderating it. There’s some amazing panelists on there talking about, you know, how they’re using health economics. There’s investors on the panel, and consultants on the panel, to really talk about how they’re using health economics as part of their operations. So one more question on the summit. Who is it designed for? Is this designed for, you know, your traditional ISPORians, or who are you hoping to attend?
Rob Abbott: You know, I think this is deliberately different than an ISPOR conference. And that’s intentional. So, the ISPOR conferences are fantastic. And they’re omnibus. This is much more focused, if I can put it that way. So, the summit is designed for healthcare investors, drug developers and policy leaders. And if I drop down a layer, I would say healthcare venture capitalists, startup founders and financial backers seeking to understand commercialization and valuation pathways. You know, pharma, biotech and medical device leaders navigating market access and pricing challenges, policy experts, health economists, yes, but value strategists are what I refer to as value strategists and access leaders. These are the kinds of people that are going to commingle at the summit. And I think in creating a space for those kinds of interactions and those conversations to take place. You know, my hope, if not expectation, is that there will be some conversations sparked that don’t usually happen. And that’s kind of the magic elixir that I’m hoping we achieve.
Melanie Whittington: I think you also see that carried through in the program. It’s a very focused, actionable program. This is what we’re talking about. These are the tools; these are the things you can be doing. So, it really seems very, you know, less academic and very actionable and translatable.
Rob Abbott: I’m so glad you raised that because I think especially for incredibly busy investors and biotech executives, it’s perhaps easy to look at ISPOR and say, well, you know, it was kind of an academic society or what have you. And I just want to dispel that myth. Uh, about 20% of ISPOR’s membership could be classified as academic. And increasingly we are wanting to bring that diversity, you know, together. Yes, we need some academics, but we need some business folks as well. We need some government folks. We need patient voices. When we have a focused event like this, which is deliberately smaller, you know, the audience deliberately narrows like this is about getting down to brass tacks and understanding, okay, I’m a biotech executive and I have concerns about X, Y, and Z. I’m an investor and I have specific questions about value, or I have questions that I need to be asking management teams. How do I understand what those questions are? That’s what this summit is all about. This is about, yes, making the world a better place. But it’s about getting to the business of the business.
Melanie Whittington: Oh, I love it. Well, I’ll be at the summit. You’ll be at the summit. If anybody listening wants to attend the summit and participate in these conversations with us, please do so. I’ll make sure again to include the link in the show notes. Rob, this was such a pleasure. You’ll have to come back again and tell us how the summit went. And I can’t wait to see you in San Francisco next month.
Rob Abbott: Thanks so much, Mel. It’s a great pleasure to be here with you. And yes, I look forward to seeing you next month in San Francisco as well.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Perspectives. If you’re interested in participating in future podcasts or would like to learn more about the Leerink Center for Pharmacoeconomics, please email cpe@medacorp.com.
The Center for Pharmacoeconomics (“CPE”) is a division of MEDACorp LLC (“MEDACorp”). CPE is committed to advancing the understanding and evaluating the economic and societal benefits of healthcare treatments in the United States. Through its thought leadership, evaluations, and advisory services, CPE supports decisions intended to improve societal outcomes. MEDACorp, an affiliate of Leerink Partners LLC (“Leerink Partners”), maintains a global network of independent healthcare professionals providing industry and market insights to Leerink Partners and its clients. The information provided by the Center for Pharmacoeconomics is intended for the sole use of the recipient, is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute investment or other advice or a recommendation or offer to buy or sell any security, product, or service. The information has been obtained from sources that we believe reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice, and any opinions and information contained herein are as of the date of this material, and MEDACorp does not undertake any obligation to update them. This document may not be reproduced, edited, or circulated without the express written consent of MEDACorp.
© 2026 MEDACorp LLC. All Rights Reserved.
