ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2026
Insights from Financial Economics to Value Healthcare Investments that Reduce System-Level Risks: Example of Disease Elimination and Eradication.
Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
System-level risks generate volatility that can threaten the stability of public health systems and jeopardise population health. In financial terms, these risks may be systematic, arising from macroeconomic shocks, or systemic, arising from cascading failures due to interconnectedness. Interventions such as disease elimination and eradication (DEE) play a crucial role in mitigating the aggregate impact of such risks. However, conventional health economic evaluations often overlook these broader benefits realised during periods of instability, focusing instead on programme-specific risks under steady-state assumptions. Insights from financial economics can help capture this value and inform a more robust economic appraisal. This paper explores how concepts from financial economics can strengthen conventional health economic methods for evaluating programmes that reduce the aggregate impact of such system-level risks, using DEE as a primary example. It draws on asset pricing theory, macroeconomic models of rare disasters, real options analysis, and discounting practices. Key recommendations include recognising the added value of programmes that perform better during downturns due to the protection they offer against macroeconomic shocks or catastrophic events; using 'real options' thinking to manage uncertainty and preserve flexibility in long-term, high sunk cost projects; and accounting for equity considerations when setting discount rates for programmes with significant intergenerational impacts. The financial economics tools highlighted here could serve as key components of a broader analytical framework, supporting investment decisions that recognise and more accurately capture the value of investments that reduce the aggregate impact of system-level risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.