Nermina Ferizovic | Health Economics Expert

Health Economics is a rapidly expanding field with many exciting areas of inquiry, all of which aim to (sometimes implicitly) improve the health of the population. However, the dearth of Health Economists with the appropriate qualifications, skills and knowledge could be argued to be stifling the development of the field. 

There are perhaps two very broad, and potentially too simplistic, contributors stifling the field’s development. Firstly, not enough Economists decide to pursue a career in Health Economics, perhaps as it does not offer as many financial incentives as finance or banking. Secondly, for many individuals Health Economics is a second career path meaning that there is potentially a skills gap in the necessary and relevant baseline knowledge.

I would argue that as a result, the field needs to consider the following key questions:

• How do we entice people who already possess the relevant baseline skills and knowledge to the field? 
• How do we ensure that those from alternative/non-traditional academic paths have the relevant baseline knowledge?
• How should we define ‘relevant baseline knowledge’?
• Should the field require a minimum set of (academic or other) requirements? 
• Do we require a regulatory body to ensure standards in the field?

Here are some of my very brief thoughts. 

Firstly, defining baseline skills and knowledge. Let’s say that these include knowledge on economic theory and statistics, qualitative methodologies, mathematics, and analytics as well as writing and communication skills. (By no means should individuals be experts in all!). I guess it is obvious that I am a keen proponent of the idea that Health Economics is a branch of Economics, which sometimes seems to be conveniently ignored. We need to consider carefully how we might inspire Economists to specialise in health. Is it simply a case of making them aware of how fulfilling a career in this field can be? Or even simply making them aware of the existence of it? 

Some solutions may lie in other fields, for instance law or even accounting, where it is also common for individuals to re-train. In these fields, there are standard and minimum requirements i.e., specific courses and exams that need to be passed. These fields have regulatory bodies that ensure standards are met at baseline and continue to be maintained. Is this something we should be collectively considering?

You might even be wondering why any of this is necessary. It may well not be, but if we wish for Health Economics to be a respected field, then we should perhaps have more oversight over its development.