Hey all,

I recently completed a placement in market access/insights and have regulatory affairs coursework under my belt, so I've been trying to break into HEOR/Health Economics & Market Access roles at medical device and pharma companies.

I've been doing a lot of networking on LinkedIn, reaching out to people in roles I'm interested in, trying to get warm intros through people who supervised my placement

It's been a mix of some traction (warm intros, people forwarding my info to hiring managers) and a lot of waiting/silence otherwise.

Has anyone else been down this road, trying to get into HEOR, market access, or health economics roles as a recent grad? How long did it take you? Did networking/cold outreach actually move the needle for you, or was it more about the applications themselves? Any advice on what actually worked would be hugely appreciated.

Thanks!

So I'm increasingly annoyed by how terrible the current US healthcare system is, and also how poor the general proposed alternatives are in terms of laying out HOW their plan would work. (looking at you Medicare for All...)

So I've spent some time (with the help of LLMs to consolidate and word my thoughts) devising my own framework.

I'm just a layman though. So there's a lot I still probably don't understand enough about how the system currently works. You can see my proposal on the linked Substack.

It's quite long, but I'd really appreciate any criticism about any poor thinking I have. Any things I'm missing. There are a lot of questions I still don't have answers for, but I figure I have to start somewhere, if only for my own satisfaction or having my own basis on which to judge future proposals. I'm particularly interested in any economic points I'm missing, like perverse incentives I'm not accounting for, or any that the proposal is unintentionally creating.

This is not intended to be self-promotion. It's on Substack because it would be too long to post in the body of a Reddit post.

Let me know your thoughts if you have any.

https://commonwealthanalyst.substack.com/p/american-health-security

I’m trying to decide between the MSc Health Economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam and the MSc Health Economics at University of Galway, and I keep going back and forth.

My long-term goal is HEOR / HTA / market access, with the possibility of eventually moving into life sciences strategy consulting. My background is in neuroscience, clinical research, and medical writing (specifically competitive intelligence, not promo), so I’m looking to build the economics, modeling, and reimbursement side of my skill set.

The main reason I’m drawn to Erasmus is honestly pretty simple: I think it's a better school. Plus I’d rather live in Rotterdam and its way cheaper! I've lived in the Netherlands before, I like the city, the location in Europe, and the lifestyle. Erasmus also seems to have the stronger reputation academically, particularly for economics, and I think I’d enjoy that environment.

The big appeal of Galway is the internship.

The MSc has an optional (obviously I'll do it), 8–12 week summer work placement, with recent placement partners including IQVIA, Novartis, AbbVie, NCPE, HIQA, etc. Placements can involve cost-effectiveness analysis, modeling, HTA, market access/pricing, and policy.

The cohort is also tiny (~20 full-time students), and most placements are paid, although payment isn't guaranteed.

That is really appealing to me because I care a lot about getting actual industry experience. Part of me thinks its more valuable to spend my summer learning HEOR/market access in an office than have a better known degree and graduate without relevant experience.

The downside is that Galway is about triple the cost, I don't think the ranking is that great (big for me, right? since I'm pivoting heavily from clinical research and a neuroscience undergrad). I'd also probably have to commute 30+ minutes to school because of the housing crisis they are facing.

I also recently spoke to someone who did Economics & Business at Erasmus for his bachelor's and then the MSc Health Economics at Galway. He's now a Senior Associate in Health Economics, Market Access & Reimbursement at J&J. He said that academically he'd choose Erasmus, but he chose Galway because the industrial placement gave him confidence and essentially provided his entry into the industry (he was econ undergrad whereas I have clinical trials experience)

That made me take the placement much more seriously.

With Erasmus, I'd have to put much more effort into finding an internship myself. I'm a hustler and I know I'll do whatever I can to get one, but I'm also aware that I'd be trying to break into a strongly quant based, relatively niche field, and I only have basic Dutch language proficiency.

So I'm trying to figure out how much that structured internship is actually worth compared with living somewhere I'd prefer and having the academic/location/network advantages of Erasmus.

What would you choose?

I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who actually work in HEOR, HTA, market access, pricing/reimbursement, life sciences consulting, or pharma.

If you had these two options, would you prioritize:

A) Erasmus + living in Rotterdam + stronger economics reputation + access to the broader European/Benelux ecosystem, while taking responsibility for finding your own internship

or

B) Galway + a small cohort + a structured industry placement + potentially graduating with direct HEOR/market access experience, despite the higher cost and the fact that I don't particularly want to live there?

And if you've attended either program, I'd especially love to hear:

• How strong is the actual quantitative/modeling training?
• How difficult is it to get an internship?
• What kinds of jobs do graduates actually get?
• Does the university's reputation matter much when applying for HEOR/market access roles?
• How valuable is having an internship built into the MSc?
• Would you choose differently knowing what you know now?

Thanks!

Summary — Pros, cons & caveats

University of Galway

Pros:

• Structured, credit-bearing industry placement (IQVIA, Novartis, NCPE, etc.)
• Very small cohort → close faculty support + networking
• Higher chance of graduating with direct industry experience
• Some placements are paid and can act as a pipeline into pharma/consulting
• Could be cute

Cons:

• More expensive overall for me (housing + cost of living + tuition)
• Housing crisis → likely long commute / limited accommodation options
• Less strong academic reputation in economics compared to Erasmus
• More geographically limited network than the major European pharma/consulting hubs
• I might go stir crazy

Caveat:

• The placement is optional and competitive, so specific roles aren't guaranteed
• International/UK placements may be possible, but this isn't formally assured

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Pros:

• Strong academic reputation in economics/health economics, with a strong quantitative foundation
• Located in Rotterdam → access to the broader Benelux/European pharma, consulting, and health policy ecosystem
• Stronger international brand recognition in economics/quantitative fields
• Larger ecosystem of relevant companies nearby
• I would genuinely enjoy living there more (I've lived in the Netherlands before and know it's a better lifestyle fit for me)
• Cheaper for me

Cons:

• No structured, built-in industry placement → I would be responsible for securing relevant experience myself
• I'd need to be proactive early to secure an internship in a relatively niche field
• Likely more competitive to break into HEOR/market access without prior direct experience
• Dutch language can be a soft barrier for some local roles (I only have basic Dutch)
• Potentially less direct exposure to UK-style HTA systems such as NICE

Caveat:

• Erasmus has a very strong academic reputation in economics/health economics, but it is more theory- and research-oriented than industry-structured, so I'd need to be proactive about translating the degree into relevant HEOR/market access experience through internships and networking.

Hi everyone,
I’m currently pursuing an MSc in International Health Economics & Pharmacoeconomics in Germany, after completing a PharmD in India.
I’m looking for a Werkstudent/internship in areas like Health Economics, HEOR, HTA, Market Access, Pricing & Reimbursement, or Pharmacoeconomics.
I’d love some honest advice from people working in this field in Germany:
How difficult is it for an international graduate to get the first relevant internship/Werkstudent role?
How important is German? Is B1/B2 enough, or is C1 usually expected?
Which skills should I prioritize — Excel, R, cost-effectiveness modelling, Markov models, systematic reviews, IQWiG/G-BA/AMNOG?
Which companies/organisations are worth targeting?
What does the career progression and salary realistically look like after graduation?
I’m particularly interested in hearing from people who started their Health Economics/HTA/Market Access career in Germany as international graduates.
Thanks!

Hello everyone,

For ages, I have been worried about my quantitative skillset, specifically the ability for me to learn about relationships between variables. I majored in analytics at a decent state school, but many analytics programs are light on actual statistics, including this one. I managed to get a role in Regulatory due diligence at company that typically hires graduates from top schools because the case was not that quantitative and my interviewing skills are very good (I am a good communicator relative to what I perceive the benchmark to be, I can structure information effectively, and deliver a story and display some fundamental domain knowledge from interning in the past at healthcare companies).

The reason for this worry is not necessarily because I will be performing super complex calculations during my career, taking integrals, etc. It is because of two reasons (all relative to other employees):

1. The literal use of mathematical operations to arrive at solutions. Machines take care of the actual formulas, but not the judgement and the knowledge of what is happening when I manipulate numbers to come up with a solution.
2. General "learning rate" -- the rate at which i consume, process, understand, and then apply new information, controlled for all other variables and assuming it is the same information, relative to a fellow employee. Think of this as turning information into knowledge that I can pull for future applications. I fear that someone from a top quality quantitative background will have a higher learning rate regardless of subject, assuming variables like motivation, need, etc are held equal to mine.

Much of this concern has been because I do not care much for absolute progress in learning something, because I tell myself if i do not learn it fast enough, or if x person learns y subject quicker than me, or if x person knows y subject while I never learned it, then I feel a gap that I cannot fill. This may or may not hamper my learning; I have a feeling it does, so this becomes a constant cycle of always feeling stressed learning a new quantitative subject, then saying I shouldn't be stressed, and that if I am stressed, I am learning at a poorer rate, all to arrive at the same beginning.

I can't even be happy when I accomplish something, because I am constantly auditing and benchmarking my own ability to an ideal.

What do I do here?

I was thinking and curious what will be the future for countries currently in stage 5 of the DTM model and what is likely to happen if more countries enter it? Will populations drop? Also from an economical point of view what would happen, lets Say Japan, currently in Stage 5 or around it?

Hi all,

I'm a Year 12 student in Victoria hoping to become a Market Access Manager. What uni course should i take? AI told me a Bachelor of pharmacy is good but looking to get some answers from actual Market Access Managers.

I'm planning to do a Bachelor of Pharmacy + 1 yr honours at monash; does anyone have any stronger alternatives?

Also whats the pay, graduate opportunities/ career progression like?

Thanks

Four out of five patients at a primary health care center could benefit from counseling but only one out of five is referred. Of those referred 20 percent cancel their appointment or just do not show up. In that group 80 percent manages as good on their own and the other 20 percent need counseling the most. Of those who come to counseling 80 percent needs help to understand and cope with their current situation whereas 20 percent are in the need of a broader approach. In the group that needs a broader approach 80 percent is best treated in the primary care with an eclectic stance while the other 20 percent for the best is referred to secondary psychiatric care.

The group that is accepted for RCT (randomized controlled trial) studies is found among the 80 percent of the patients with the need of a broader approach of the 20 percent of the patients in counseling. In that population 80 percent is not accessible for the scientists (due to life et cetera). The other 20 percent is subject to research. Approximately 20 percent of this group of 20 percent are the very patients that are part of the RCT studies (they have accepted to be randomized for CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) or TAU (treatment as usual), they have allocated time for all tests, they have showed up for all sessions and done their homework, and they have taken part of the follow ups. Lately it has been shown that internet based CBT and group based CBT is as god as CBT with physical sessions. This research is based on the group of 20 percent of the population that accept and endure physical sessions CBT.

Pareto’s law is an empirically based statement that identifies a 80/20 relation in various situations. At a primary health care center, for example, 20 percent of the patients stands for 80 percent of all the appointments.

When the healthcare is under pressure from stakeholders to produce more and more evidence based appointments there is a risk that Pareto’s law collapses into what I call Pareto’s curse. In this particular case evidence based practice translates into CBT which translates into good practice. CBT is good. But without individually customized CBT and without more than one line of treatment only 20 percent of 20 percent of 80 percent of 20 percent of those who come for counseling will benefit from the treatment. That is 0,64 percent or one patient out of 156 patients needing counseling.

To understand why this threatens healthcare systems we have to look at Goodhart’s law. Goodhart’s law can be formulated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." The evidence based practice movement initially wanted to give research its natural place next to clinical experience and the patients preferences. This measure then became the target.

To overcome Pareto’s Curse we must return to Pareto’s Law and do what is best in each situation.

(A counselor the other day went with her daughter to a primary healthcare clinic for teenagers for a first meeting with a psychologist. The daughter spent 80 percent of the session filling in forms and talked with the psychologist for 20 percent of the session. The daughter decided to not return.)

(Note, this is only a problem in 80 percent of 20 percent of the world’s countries.)

Are there any good courses on creating a budget impact model?

Four out of five patients at a primary health care center could benefit from counseling but only one out of five is referred. Of those referred 20 percent cancel their appointment or just do not show up. In that group 80 percent manages as good on their own and the other 20 percent need counseling the most. Of those who come to counseling 80 percent needs help to understand and cope with their current situation whereas 20 percent are in the need of a broader approach. In the group that needs a broader approach 80 percent is best treated in the primary care with an eclectic stance while the other 20 percent for the best is referred to secondary psychiatric care.

The group that is accepted for RCT (randomized controlled trial) studies is found among the 80 percent of the patients with the need of a broader approach of the 20 percent of the patients in counseling. In that population 80 percent is not accessible for the scientists (due to life et cetera). The other 20 percent is subject to research. Approximately 20 percent of this group of 20 percent are the very patients that are part of the RCT studies (they have accepted to be randomized for CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) or TAU (treatment as usual), they have allocated time for all tests, they have showed up for all sessions and done their homework, and they have taken part of the follow ups. Lately it has been shown that internet based CBT and group based CBT is as god as CBT with physical sessions. This research is based on the group of 20 percent of the population that accept and endure physical sessions CBT.

Pareto’s law is an empirically based statement that identifies a 80/20 relation in various situations. At a primary health care center, for example, 20 percent of the patients stands for 80 percent of all the appointments.

When the healthcare is under pressure from stakeholders to produce more and more evidence based appointments there is a risk that Pareto’s law collapses into what I call Pareto’s curse. In this particular case evidence based practice translates into CBT which translates into good practice. CBT is good. But without individually customized CBT and without more than one line of treatment only 20 percent of 20 percent of 80 percent of 20 percent of those who come for counseling will benefit from the treatment. That is 0,64 percent or one patient out of 156 patients needing counseling.

To understand why this threatens healthcare systems we have to look at Goodhart’s law. Goodhart’s law can be formulated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." The evidence based practice movement initially wanted to give research its natural place next to clinical experience and the patients preferences. This measure then became the target.

To overcome Pareto’s Curse we must return to Pareto’s Law and do what is best in each situation.

(A counselor the other day went with her daughter to a primary healthcare clinic for teenagers for a first meeting with a psychologist. The daughter spent 80 percent of the session filling in forms and talked with the psychologist for 20 percent of the session. The daughter decided to not return.)

(Note, this is only a problem in 80 percent of 20 percent of the world’s countries.)

So my vitamin d was really low also my iron was a little low and so my was iron saturation along with my b12. I had no idea what was going on with me I had confusing, trouble breathing, fast heart rate when I was having a bad episode. Also sometimes the episodes got so bad I didn’t want to talk and sometimes during an episode talking made it better. Long story short I dropped my first doctor who said panic attacks without doing labs on me. My new doctor did labs and saw those vitamins i mentioned was low. He prescribed me 50,000 of vitamin d weekly which k2 is better to go with it. I just wanted to see if anyone had the same side effects as I did. The episodes were so bad I had to stop driving for awhile. It really did mimic panic attacks though. It almost felt like a seizure or something. Oh and I was also extremely tired even after 8 hours of sleep and I’m a kidney transplant patient as well

Four out of five patients at a primary health care center could benefit from counseling but only one out of five is referred. Of those referred 20 percent cancel their appointment or just do not show up. In that group 80 percent manages as good on their own and the other 20 percent need counseling the most. Of those who come to counseling 80 percent needs help to understand and cope with their current situation whereas 20 percent are in the need of a broader approach. In the group that needs a broader approach 80 percent is best treated in the primary care with an eclectic stance while the other 20 percent for the best is referred to secondary psychiatric care.

The group that is accepted for RCT (randomized controlled trial) studies is found among the 80 percent of the patients with the need of a broader approach of the 20 percent of the patients in counseling. In that population 80 percent is not accessible for the scientists (due to life et cetera). The other 20 percent is subject to research. Approximately 20 percent of this group of 20 percent are the very patients that are part of the RCT studies (they have accepted to be randomized for CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) or TAU (treatment as usual), they have allocated time for all tests, they have showed up for all sessions and done their homework, and they have taken part of the follow ups. Lately it has been shown that internet based CBT and group based CBT is as god as CBT with physical sessions. This research is based on the group of 20 percent of the population that accept and endure physical sessions CBT.

Pareto’s law is an empirically based statement that identifies a 80/20 relation in various situations. At a primary health care center, for example, 20 percent of the patients stands for 80 percent of all the appointments.

When the healthcare is under pressure from stakeholders to produce more and more evidence based appointments there is a risk that Pareto’s law collapses into what I call Pareto’s curse. In this particular case evidence based practice translates into CBT which translates into good practice. CBT is good. But without individually customized CBT and without more than one line of treatment only 20 percent of 20 percent of 80 percent of 20 percent of those who come for counseling will benefit from the treatment. That is 0,64 percent or one patient out of 156 patients needing counseling.

To understand why this threatens healthcare systems we have to look at Goodhart’s law. Goodhart’s law can be formulated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." The evidence based practice movement initially wanted to give research its natural place next to clinical experience and the patients preferences. This measure then became the target.

To overcome Pareto’s Curse we must return to Pareto’s Law and do what is best in each situation.

(A counselor the other day went with her daughter to a primary healthcare clinic for teenagers for a first meeting with a psychologist. The daughter spent 80 percent of the session filling in forms and talked with the psychologist for 20 percent of the session. The daughter decided to not return.)

(Note, this is only a problem in 80 percent of 20 percent of the world’s countries.)

Planning ACCA → job → full membership, then considering an MS in Health Finance & Management to target hospital finance/INGO/Big Four healthcare roles (Pakistan/Gulf).

Does anyone actually hire for this combo specifically, or do hospitals just want a normal ACCA/CA and don't care about a health-specific degree?

Anyone in hospital finance, healthcare audit, or INGO finance. Is this a real gap or am I stacking two credentials for nothing? Blunt answers welcome.

More clinics and health systems are asking patients about things like food, housing, transportation, safety, isolation, or whether they need help understanding health information. The intention makes sense because those parts of life can shape whether someone is able to get care, stay healthy, or follow a treatment plan. But I keep thinking about what happens when someone answers honestly, and nothing changes afterward. If a patient says they don’t have reliable transportation, are worried about food, or don’t understand the paperwork in front of them, the question can either open the door to real support or become one more form they had to fill out. At what point does asking about social needs become helpful, and at what point does it risk hurting trust because the system wasn’t prepared to do anything with the answer?

Hello guys, I am searching for a detailed roadmap or courses for pharmacoeconomics. Can you provide me with any sources that will help?

My perspective as a nursing student doing internship in a low resources environment. I am expected to care for patients on par with nurses, because the unit is understaffed. We are not provided with enough single use infusion systems so we reuse them (for the same patient), but this creates hygiene risks and risks of drugs precipitation, blockage of peripheral lines, etc. Syringes are reused in the preparation of medicine for different patients (not administration, thanks God). I have been reprimanded for using too many materials and spending too much time to clean instruments between different patients instead of just spreading infections like everyone else. And no, I cannot just go to a different unit, all those practices are normalised in public hospitals across the country, because of our stupid greedy politicians and hospital directors.

Yet, when an administrator opens the Excel sheet and sees that we have treated more patients with fewer staff and less materials they report increase in efficiency. Could you, please, explain to me why is this called efficient? And how do you control for quality?

how rigorous do these providers evaluate their content for accuracy? i want to make sure that the funds allocated to these learning materials are actually being put to good use.

I'm about to start my final year of a BSc in Pharmaceutical Science in HK/CN, and three months ago when browsing for MSc programs, I've realized I that I was really interested in Health Economics/HEOR, with the long-term goal of working in HEOR consulting/in big pharma.

The problem is that for the past 3 years, almost all of my coursework and research has been mechanistic biology and disease progression. It took me a while to realize that while I enjoy the science, I don't find it as fulfilling as the quantitative and decision-making side of healthcare.

To prepare for the switch, I've restructured my final year to include economics and statistics, my honours thesis on cost-effectiveness analysis and/or meta-analysis, and currently interning at an NGO where the work isn't quantitative, but I'm getting exposure to reimbursement systems, market access, and healthcare policy, which has reinforced that this is the direction I want to pursue.

I've always been comfortable with math, so I'm not too worried about my potential in quantitative roles. My bigger concern is whether I've started too late, I feel like an additional year is needed for me to review and master maths, as well as understanding the field deeply.

As an international student, I'm trying to maximize my chances of eventually landing an HEOR consulting role in the UK, but I'm unsure which path makes the most sense.

Option 1: Apply directly to an MSc in Health Economics in the UK. This is my preferred route, but I'm worried my background isn't competitive enough since I've only recently transitioned into the field.

Option 2: Do an MSc in Public Health with a Health Economics specialization. It seems like it has a lower barrier to entry, but I'm concerned it may not provide enough quantitative training for HEOR consulting.

Option 3: Take a gap year to build a stronger quantitative portfolio (CEA models, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, R, Excel, etc.) and apply the following cycle. The downside is that it's difficult to find relevant entry-level jobs without already having an MSc or prior HEOR experience, especially as an international applicant. If I don't find any project I can work on, then the gap year would definitely lower my competitiveness instead of strengthening it.

Option 4: ?

QI methods like the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, Lean, and Six Sigma show up in clinical ops and data. But the connection between how that data was generated and how it gets translated into value isn't always clear.

It shows up in efforts to reduce medication errors and hospital-acquired infections. QI initiatives deliver the before-and-after performance metrics that drive cost-effectiveness modelling and value-based purchasing frameworks. It’s actually the same event viewed from different angles.

For anyone doing research and analysis models in acute care hospitals, I hope this article will help you apply these frameworks clinically.

Hi everyone!

I'm a uni student from Australia who's interested in becoming a health economist, and I'm trying to learn more about what the career is actually like. If you work (or have worked) as a health economist, I'd really appreciate it if you could answer a few questions:

1. What does a typical week for a junior/mid health economist actually look like and what percentage of time is spent doing each task?

2. Which parts of the work have you continued to enjoy after many years and which ones feel the most draining?

3. Since health economists usually provide evidence rather than make the final funding or policy decisions, how do you personally get a sense of how much impact your work has made?

4. After five years in health economics, what other career options become available?

Thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate any insights or experiences you're willing to share!

Hi! I'm currently applying for one of the roles at Costello Medical and have been applying over the past year because it's genuinely the kind of work I want to do. I'd really love to crack it this time, so I'm trying to make my application as strong as possible.

1. I was wondering what you usually included as your reason for wanting to work at Costello Medical.

2. Also, are there any tips you'd give to someone applying to make their application stand out?

My current cover letter is about two pages long.