Health Economics & Market Access Consulting
YourCareChoice helps life-science teams build the evidence that supports value generation and regulatory submissions — starting with rigorous qualitative research, stakeholder interviews, and concept elicitation, and carrying through to discrete choice experiments, evidence synthesis, and health economic modeling.
Evidence built to withstand scrutiny — from the patient's voice, through the physician's practice, to the decision-maker's desk.
Start a Conversation- Evidence first
- Right-sized engagements
- Direct access to the person doing the work
Research methods that connect the patient experience to the evidence decision-makers need
No therapy works for everyone. Patients, physicians, payers, and policymakers each need evidence that identifies who is most likely to benefit — a transparent view of costs and benefits, not just an average effect. We design research that puts that evidence in front of each of them, so nothing gets lost in translation between the exam room and the P&T committee.
What lived experience actually feels like
Symptom burden, treatment burden, and the outcomes that matter most day to day — captured through interviews and concept elicitation, then translated into PRO instruments and discrete choice experiments decision-makers can act on.
Evidence that matches clinical reality
Real-world effectiveness, safety, and fit with practice patterns — built from registries, real-world data, and comparative-effectiveness methods that hold up against how physicians actually treat.
A defensible case for value
Cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and comparative value framed to the standards HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers require — grounded in the patient and physician evidence built alongside it, not bolted on after.
Capabilities & Services
Methods support across the evidence lifecycle, with particular depth in qualitative research, preference methods, evidence synthesis, real-world registries, and early HTA engagement.
Qualitative Research & Stakeholder Interviews
Concept elicitation interviews, focus groups, and cognitive debriefing that ground PRO instrument development in what matters most to patients — plus exit interviews with clinical trial participants that contextualize quantitative results in their own words.
Discrete Choice Experiments & Preference Research
Design, fielding, and analysis of discrete choice experiments and other stated-preference methods that quantify how patients, physicians, and payers trade off treatment attributes.
Systematic Literature Reviews & Indirect Comparisons
Systematic literature reviews, network meta-analyses, and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons that synthesize the evidence base when head-to-head trial data doesn't exist.
Real-World Evidence & Patient Registries
Registry design, data-source feasibility assessment, and analysis in support of long-term safety, effectiveness, and value questions that clinical trials alone can't answer.
Health Economics & Value Generation
Economic modeling, cost-effectiveness and budget-impact analyses, and value dossiers built on the qualitative and quantitative evidence developed above.
Early HTA Engagement & Regulatory Submission Support
Evidence-requirement planning and early scientific advice engagement — with NICE, the EU's Joint Clinical Assessment framework, CDA-AMC (formerly CADTH), and other national HTA bodies — so evidence gaps are identified and closed while the development plan can still change, not discovered at submission.
Representative Experience
A sample of the therapeutic areas and methods behind our work — details generalized to protect client and publication confidentiality.
Characterizing Symptom Burden in Advanced Oncology
Concept elicitation interviews with patients and physicians characterizing the symptom and functional burden of an advanced solid tumor — feeding directly into PRO endpoint selection for a global registrational trial program.
Physician Prescribing Trade-offs in Anti-Infective Therapy
A national discrete choice experiment quantifying how prescribers weigh efficacy, dosing, side effects, and resistance risk for an anti-infective drug class — informing development priorities and coverage-policy discussions.
Global Burden-of-Illness Synthesis in Gastric Cancer
A targeted literature review quantifying the clinical and economic burden of a gastrointestinal cancer across geographies, built to anchor a value narrative where head-to-head data was limited.
Comorbidity and Utilization Patterns in Chronic Inflammatory Disease
Multi-year claims-based cohort studies characterizing treatment patterns, cardiovascular and renal comorbidity, and healthcare utilization in patients with a chronic inflammatory condition.
Cost-Effectiveness of Delivery Technologies in Diabetes Care
A simulation-based cost-effectiveness model comparing insulin delivery technologies for a chronic metabolic disease from a US payer perspective.
Decoding the Evidence Drivers Behind Oncology Reimbursement
An assessment of HTA appraisal decisions identifying which evidence gaps most often determined reimbursement outcomes for oncology therapies approved on early-phase data — used to plan evidence generation for assets still in development.
About YourCareChoice
YourCareChoice is a health economics and market access consulting practice supporting pharmaceutical and biotechnology teams with patient-reported outcome measure development, health economic modeling, and real-world evidence generation.
Our approach starts with qualitative research: stakeholder interviews, concept elicitation, and outcomes-measurement work are treated as the foundation for the quantitative evidence — preference studies, indirect comparisons, and economic models — that ultimately supports a value story, rather than as a separate workstream.
Concept elicitation is the qualitative foundation that FDA's Patient-Focused Drug Development guidance — issued under the 21st Century Cures Act — and ISPOR's PRO Good Research Practices Task Force both point to for establishing the content validity of a new PRO instrument: structured interviews and focus groups that surface the symptoms and impacts patients say matter most, before a single item is drafted. Where a trial is already underway, exit interviews with participants add a second layer of qualitative evidence — hearing directly from patients at or near study completion to contextualize quantitative endpoint and PRO results, and to surface concepts a standardized instrument alone may not capture.
Engagements are scoped to the evidence question at hand, whether that's a single systematic literature review, a discrete choice experiment protocol, or end-to-end support from concept elicitation through a regulatory submission.
Areas of Focus
- Concept elicitation & PRO instrument development
- Qualitative exit interviews in clinical trials
- Discrete choice experiments & stated-preference methods
- Systematic literature reviews & network meta-analysis
- Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons
- Real-world evidence & patient registries
- Health economic modeling & value dossiers
- Early HTA scientific advice (NICE, EU JCA, CDA-AMC)
- HTA, payer, and regulatory submission support
How We Work
Evidence gaps don't wait for a procurement cycle. Most engagements start with a single deliverable — not a multi-year contract — so the work can begin while the paperwork catches up.
Scoping Sprint
A single bounded deliverable — a literature review, an evidence-gap analysis, a DCE protocol — under a short-form agreement. Built to prove fit before either side commits further.
Project Engagement
A defined study or workstream, scoped and priced up front, still outside a multi-year MSA.
Program Partnership
For continuing work, we'll operate inside your standard MSA and procurement process.
Contact Us
Tell us about the evidence or access question you're facing — a study that needs a qualitative foundation, a preference study, a literature review, or a registry — and we'll follow up with how we'd approach it.