This summer, I had the opportunity to conduct health economics research under the mentorship of Dr. Rocco Friebel at the Department of Health Policy (Global Surgery Policy Unit) and Dr. Kishore Iyer at Mount Sinai. Our project centered on improving access to care and informing treatment decisions for patients with chronic intestinal failure (CIF), a rare condition with complex treatment pathways and high associated costs.
At the heart of our research was the design and implementation of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE), a method used to quantify patient and caregiver preferences for different treatment pathways and care delivery models. With annual treatment costs ranging from approximately $100,000 for parenteral nutrition (PN) to over $1 million for transplantation in the first year, there is an urgent need for evidence that can guide the development of more cost-effective and patient-centric approaches. Beyond the financial challenges, patients with CIF face additional barriers within the U.S. healthcare system, including payer restrictions, geographic disparities, and low health literacy. By capturing patient and caregiver preferences, this DCE will provide foundational evidence for a broader pilot initiative in clinical and policy innovation aimed at tackling these systemic challenges.
While the project has been incredibly meaningful, it also came with its fair share of challenges. Entering the field of health economics, I found myself navigating a steep learning curve – particularly when it came to the analytical methods behind evaluating preferences and measures such as willingness to pay (WTP). The use of a DCE to capture these measures was entirely new to me, and familiarizing myself with the technical and programming aspects of regression analysis required a great deal of effort. Yet, these challenges proved to be some of the most rewarding aspects of my experience.
What I found most fulfilling was the opportunity to work on research that is firmly grounded in a real-world context – research that seeks to dismantle barriers to care for patients who often face limited options. Although our project represents just one small step toward more equitable healthcare delivery, it has reinforced my passion for pursuing work that combines policy innovation with patient-centered outcomes. Now equipped with a foundational toolkit in health economics research, I feel more motivated than ever to contribute to efforts that expand treatment access, particularly within the rare disease space.
The research I did through the WRAP program this summer has not only deepened my understanding of healthcare disparities but has also strengthened my commitment to advancing solutions that have the potential to make tangible differences in patients’ lives.