ISPOR 2026 daily round-ups: Insights from Day 2
Day 2 at ISPOR 2026, the annual meeting of ISPOR—the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, continued to build on the policy and evidence themes established on Day 1, with a program that combined strategic reflection with applied methodological discussion.
The agenda was anchored by the Presidential Addresses, Special Address, and awards, alongside the second plenary, “The True Cost of Cancer: Aligning Innovation, Access, and Affordability,” which examined how healthcare systems are responding to rising costs and ongoing innovation.
Across the program, sessions focused on real-world evidence, value assessment, and affordability, including discussions on distributional cost-effectiveness, budget impact thresholds, and the evolving role of HEOR in decision-making. Here are some of the highlights from Day 2.
ISPOR Presidential Addresses, Special Address, and Awards
Day 2 of ISPOR 2026 opened with recognition of this year’s major award recipients, celebrating contributions to HEOR that have influenced both policy and practice. The ISPOR Impact Award was presented to Lorraine Dean, Amy Nunn, and Jalpa Doshi for their collaborative work demonstrating the impact of out-of-pocket costs on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) abandonment in the US. Their research informed both Rhode Island legislation and discussions surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services mandate. In addition, Sean Sullivan received the Avedis Donabedian Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of his decades-long contributions to HEOR, formulary decision making, and health technology assessment (HTA).
Outgoing ISPOR President Uwe Siebert (UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology; Harvard Chan School of Public Health) reflected on his presidential term, highlighting the society’s continued focus on scientific rigor, whole health, real-world evidence (RWE), causal methods, and the growing importance of artificial intelligence within healthcare decision-making. Siebert emphasized ISPOR’s expanding global collaborations, including initiatives related to HTA, modeling, and education, while challenging attendees to consider whether the HEOR community is prepared not only to adapt to disruptive technologies and change, but also to help shape them.
Incoming President Beth Devine (University of Washington) outlined her priorities for the coming year, which include strengthening standards for RWE, advancing whole health approaches, supporting ethical and transparent use of AI, expanding ISPOR’s global influence, and broadening engagement with new stakeholder groups. Devine reaffirmed ISPOR’s vision of “a world where healthcare is accessible, effective, efficient, and affordable for all,” while introducing the incoming Board of Directors, including new President-Elect Lotte Steuten (Office of Health Economics).
Special Address
In a special address, Dawn Hershman (Columbia University Medical Center) reflected on the patient experiences that have shaped her career in cancer care delivery research, using the story of a patient with hormone-sensitive breast cancer to illustrate the complex barriers many patients continue to face throughout their treatment journey. Hershman described how issues including inadequate insurance coverage, restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria, financial barriers, treatment delays, side effects, and early treatment discontinuation contributed to poorer outcomes for the patient. She explained that these experiences motivated her research into areas such as clinical trial access, adherence, financial toxicity, symptom management, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare delivery systems.
Hershman highlighted the significant progress made in breast cancer care, including a 44% decline in mortality rates driven by incremental advances in treatment and implementation. However, she emphasized that not all patients have benefited equally from these improvements, pointing to persistent disparities associated with race, geography, socioeconomic deprivation, insurance status, and healthcare access. She also stressed the importance of listening directly to patients, noting that traditional clinical trials often underestimate the real burden of treatment side effects and their impact on quality of life and adherence.
Concluding her remarks, Hershman emphasized the need for more patient-centered research and system-level interventions to improve cancer care delivery.
“Collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and policymakers is essential to navigating the complexities of designing and implementing trials that generate robust evidence and effectively inform clinical practice.”
Plenary 2: The True Cost of Cancer: Aligning Innovation, Access, and Affordability
The second plenary session at ISPOR 2026 explored the growing challenges associated with delivering increasingly effective – but increasingly complex – cancer care. Moderated by Scott Ramsey (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center), the panel featured Dawn Hershman (Columbia University Medical Center), Stacie Dusetzina (Vanderbilt University Medical Center) and Bobby Green (Thyme Care), who discussed topics including financial toxicity, healthcare delivery gaps, reimbursement models, treatment affordability, and the growing importance of quality of life within cancer care. Speakers highlighted how advances in treatment have transformed cancer into an increasingly long-term condition for many patients, while healthcare systems have struggled to adapt to the financial and practical realities this creates.
A follow-up media briefing hosted by ISPOR CEO Rob Abbott, featuring Ramsey, Hershman, and Dana Goldman (USC Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service), expanded on these themes, exploring issues including insurance design, value-based reimbursement, and opportunities to reduce financial burden while maintaining access to innovation. Across both discussions, panelists emphasized that balancing cancer care costs with access and innovation will require stronger evidence generation, better alignment of reimbursement with value, and more patient-centered healthcare systems.
Read our in-depth summary of Plenary 2 here >>>
Spotlight Session: Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Practice: Are We Facing Mountains or Molehills?
Opening the Health Science Policy Council spotlight session, Amanda Cole (Office of Health Economics) framed the discussion around whether distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is ready for practical implementation within HTA and healthcare decision-making. She highlighted growing policy interest in equity-informed value assessment, noting that conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can quantify aggregate health gains but does not address how those gains are distributed across populations or whether interventions may reduce or exacerbate existing health inequalities. Cole also pointed to increasing engagement from organizations including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), while raising questions around whether current methods and data are sufficient to operationalize DCEA in practice.
Ankur Pandya (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health) then outlined the conceptual foundations of DCEA and introduced the Threshold Inequality Aversion Parameter (TIAP), a methodological approach recently published in Value in Health. Pandya explained that DCEA extends conventional CEA by incorporating equity considerations into assessments of value. Central to the framework is the “inequality aversion parameter,” which reflects how much society is willing to trade overall health gains for a more equitable distribution of health outcomes. However, he noted that these values are rarely known in practice and vary considerably across settings, countries, and disparity types.
Pandya described TIAP as a practical way to interpret DCEA results without requiring a precise inequality aversion estimate. “The TIAP is to DCEA as the ICER is to conventional CEA,” he said, arguing that the approach could provide decision makers with a more interpretable framework for assessing trade-offs between efficiency and equity. Using the example of a gene therapy for sickle cell disease, Pandya illustrated how a therapy not considered conventionally cost effective could become favorable within a DCEA framework because of its potential to reduce significant health disparities affecting Black populations in the US.
Providing a practical HTA perspective, James Koh (NICE) discussed the agency’s evolving approach to health inequalities, outlining how they have historically been addressed through committee deliberation, patient testimony, and broader social value judgments. Koh highlighted recent NICE case studies involving therapies for sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia, where companies had submitted DCEA analyses alongside conventional evidence packages. Although external assessment groups identified methodological limitations within some submissions, committees still viewed the broader health inequality implications as highly relevant to decision-making.
Koh also reviewed NICE’s recent modular update on health inequalities, which provides guidance on the types of evidence and methodological standards that may support quantitative consideration of inequalities within technology appraisals. However, he emphasized that NICE does not currently apply DCEA as a formal quantitative modifier in the same way as severity weighting. Instead, DCEA outputs are considered alongside other evidence within committee deliberations. Koh argued that routine DCEA across all appraisals would currently be “burdensome and complex,” both for HTA agencies and for manufacturers generating the necessary evidence.
The session prompted extensive audience discussion around the feasibility of implementing DCEA, particularly in relation to data requirements, subgroup definitions, and evidence generation burdens. Participants highlighted the lack of formal sensitivity analysis guidance for DCEA, the operational burden of generating subgroup-level evidence, and whether DCEA should primarily be reserved for conditions with particularly severe or well-documented inequalities. Others discussed how equity variables should be defined, whether DCEA adequately captures broader social disadvantage, and how inequality-increasing technologies should be evaluated. Speakers also explored the potential for DCEA to function not only as a reimbursement tool but also as a broader system-level decision framework capable of identifying where inequalities emerge across patient pathways and healthcare systems.
Concurrent Sessions
Are Drug Prices Rising Too Fast? Rethinking Inflation Benchmarks Through the Lens of Value, Access, and Innovation Issue Panel
Moderated by William V Padula (University of Southern California), the session examined how inflation benchmarks, affordability concerns, and value assessment are shaping debates around prescription drug pricing in the US. Padula set the tone by emphasizing that “prices are important, but they’re not everything,” arguing that discussions around advanced therapies should increasingly focus on long-term value, cost offsets, and affordability rather than price alone.
Jon D Campbell (National Pharmaceutical Council) highlighted the distinction between pricing, spending, and value, outlining evidence suggesting that new drug launches are not the primary driver of overall US prescription medicine spending growth. Drawing on recent IQVIA analyses, Campbell discussed how savings associated with loss of exclusivity can offset spending increases from new therapies. He also examined trends showing that net medicine spending has remained a relatively stable proportion of overall US healthcare expenditure over time, while arguing that medicines continue to generate substantial societal value through improved outcomes and gains in life expectancy. Campbell stressed the importance of inflation-adjusted analyses, stating: “pricing is different from spending.”
Padula then presented on behalf of Laura Pizzi (ISPOR), who was unable to attend. The discussion linked the topic to ISPOR’s Strategic Plan 2030 and the organization’s focus on defining and measuring value in healthcare decision-making. The presentation highlighted concerns around out-of-pocket costs, affordability barriers for therapies such as GLP-1 medicines, and the need for alternative financing and payment models capable of supporting increasingly sophisticated and high-cost therapies. Padula also discussed the growing role of HEOR, RWE, and broader patient-centered value elements in informing US HTA and policy decisions.
Andrew York (Maryland Prescription Drug Affordability Board) provided a policy perspective on how state-level affordability boards are attempting to balance value, access, and budget pressures. York described challenges associated with limited transparency around net drug prices and noted that policy discussions are often constrained by concerns around the use of value measures such as QALYs. He emphasized that affordability boards ultimately exist because of patient experience and access barriers, concluding that the central policy question remains “how do we get the drugs to the patients that need help.”
Unlocking the Power of Real-World Evidence: The CFL-SASS Expert Consensus
Speakers in the session discussed ongoing efforts to clarify how RWE can be communicated under the FDA’s Consistent with FDA-Required Labeling (CFL) pathway with a particular focus on defining evidence that is “scientifically appropriate and statistically sound” (SASS). Moderated by Paul Stang (Independent Consultant), the discussion highlighted both regulatory considerations and practical implementation challenges for industry.
Denise Sánchez Palomo (Opus Regulatory) outlined the regulatory background of CFL and reviewed common FDA enforcement themes, including study design limitations, omitted safety information, and inappropriate interpretation of statistical findings. Emphasizing the importance of context and overall messaging in promotional communications, Sánchez Palomo stated: “you cannot disclaim away something that is false and misleading.”
Sissi Pham (AESARA) presented the CFL-SASS Collaborative, a multi-sponsor initiative using a modified Delphi approach to develop expert consensus recommendations. Pham explained that without greater clarity around SASS, “real-world evidence may exist, but not be heard or seen” by decision-makers.
Daniel Malone (University of Utah) and Richard Willke (Scintegral Health Economics) discussed several resulting consensus statements, including recommendations related to pre-specified hypotheses, endpoint selection, comparative analyses, and protocol registration. Malone emphasized that RWE studies should not become “fishing expeditions,” while Willke cautioned against “cherry picking or p-hacking” and stressed that researchers should “pre-specify your hypotheses and post it somewhere” to strengthen credibility and transparency in RWE research.
Advancements in Real-World Evidence (RWE) To Accelerate Access in Rare Cancers: Challenges, Methods, And Decision Making
Evidence generation in rare cancers remains challenging because clinical development is often constrained by small patient populations, single-arm studies, immature endpoints, fragmented data, and payer uncertainty. In a session organized by the ISPOR Real World Evidence Special Interest Group, speakers explored how RWE could help address persistent evidence gaps and strengthen confidence in evidence used for access and reimbursement decisions.
Moderated by Shilpi Swami (ConnectHEOR), the discussion brought together methodological, clinical, and payer perspectives on the evolving role of RWE in rare oncology. Swami highlighted the importance of improving confidence in these approaches, noting that “bridging this gap is critical to improve access in rare oncology.”
Presenting a proposed five-pillar framework for rare cancer RWE, Sandipan Bhattacharjee (Bayer US LLC) argued that the future of the field will depend less on generating larger volumes of evidence and more on producing credible, harmonized, decision-grade RWE. Emphasizing the need for stronger evidence standards to support decision-making, he added: “The real answer is to get high-quality decision-grade events where the stakeholders will have confidence in making the decisions.”
Scott Ramsey (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center) highlighted practical challenges in clinical settings, including under-testing and fragmented data systems. Presenting data from Washington State, Ramsey noted that many eligible patients still do not receive germline testing and stressed that “you can't treat a rare cancer unless you've identified it.” He also described a continuing RWE “black hole” in rare cancers, noting that clinicians often rely on NCCN guidance rather than RWE studies when making treatment decisions.
Diana Brixner (University of Utah) discussed payer and HTA perspectives, including ongoing challenges under the EU HTAR and US payer decision-making frameworks. Brixner emphasized the importance of transparency around uncertainty, stating: “We want to try to quantify, not necessarily minimize these evidence gaps.” She also highlighted managed entry agreements and ongoing post-launch data collection as potential approaches to support patient access while evidence continues to evolve.
The Evolving RWE Executive: Navigating AI Disruption and Changing Data Preferences
In a second session organized by the ISPOR Real World Evidence Special Interest Group, Doug Foster (Advanced Data Sciences LLC) framed the discussion around how AI may reshape the role of the RWE executive over the next 5 years, with the focus centered on the broader implications for evidence generation, organizational structures, regulatory decision-making, and healthcare access. Foster outlined the evolving responsibilities of RWE executives, describing the role as connecting clinical research with real-world patient experiences across evidence strategy, study execution, stakeholder engagement, and value communication. He highlighted a “paradox” facing the field: AI is making healthcare data easier to source and analyze through applications such as cohort identification, data extraction, study execution, and documentation, while skepticism around the use of RWD and RWE, particularly among HTA bodies, persists.
Shuvayu Sen (Merck & Co.) discussed how RWE supports decision-making across the product lifecycle for regulators, payers, providers, and patients. He highlighted how AI is accelerating evidence generation through improved data integration, automation, and more timely analytics. Sen also noted that “trust, rigor, validation and privacy-preserving” approaches would be critical as AI adoption expands. He further argued that overreliance on randomized controlled trials in HTA remains a challenge, while implementation science and subpopulation identification represent emerging opportunities for RWE.
Rachele Hendricks-Sturrup (Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy) emphasized that “the goal is high-quality research,” positioning AI and RWE as tools rather than endpoints themselves. Using the Gartner hype cycle as a framework, she described AI as being at a “peak of inflated expectations,” while RWE is beginning to move beyond a “trough of disillusionment” in some settings. Hendricks-Sturrup highlighted the need for transparent AI-supported evidence generation, human oversight, and safeguards against overreliance on AI-driven outputs.
Stephanie Reisinger (previously Flatiron Health) questioned whether AI could help RWE become more mainstream within healthcare decision-making. Comparing the current RWE ecosystem to the fragmented workflows of the late 1980s, she argued that AI should not only improve efficiency within organizations, but also fundamentally transform how RWE is produced and accessed across the industry. Reisinger suggested that fragmentation, data access, and privacy concerns remain major barriers limiting broader adoption and utility of RWE.
During the panel discussion, the speakers explored the balance between enthusiasm for AI adoption and the need for caution and governance. Sen argued that organizations “need to move fast” with AI experimentation, while emphasizing that the core challenge of identifying the right evidence generation questions remains unchanged. Hendricks-Sturrup highlighted the importance of understanding both the prompts given to AI systems and how organizations act on AI-generated insights, while Reisinger suggested that AI-driven workforce changes are likely to emerge gradually rather than immediately. Audience questions focused on data privacy, governance, and strategies for managing AI-related hype. Reisinger identified data access and privacy as major contributors to industry fragmentation, while Hendricks-Sturrup stressed that organizations should prioritize high-value, low-risk use cases when implementing AI into RWE workflows.
Incorporating Patient, Family, and Public Perspectives to Advance Novel and Societal Elements of Value in Value Assessment
Expanding value and health technology assessments (V/HTAs) beyond traditional clinical and economic measures requires greater incorporation of patient, caregiver and societal perspectives, according to speakers in this session moderated by Richard Xie (RA Capital Management).
Jingyan Yang (Pfizer, Inc.) presented a stakeholder-informed framework examining the broader burden of pediatric respiratory illness and vaccination. Drawing on focus groups involving caregivers, teachers, and patient advocates, Yang highlighted impacts that are often excluded from cost-effectiveness models, including stress, lost income, and family disruption. One parent described how “our lives have changed completely” following their child’s long COVID diagnosis, while another explained: “The value is not only medical, it also reduces fear and stress in our family.”
Meng Li (Tufts Medical Center) discussed survey findings exploring cancer patients’ and caregivers’ perspectives on real option value and preserving access to future innovations. Across multiple treatment trade-off scenarios, most respondents prioritized maintaining eligibility for future therapies. Li said the findings demonstrate that “future access matters to patients and their caregivers,” while also highlighting communication gaps between clinicians and patients regarding emerging treatments. She added that “our decisions shouldn't be made solely based on what can be quantified, because not everything is in there.”
Julia F Slejko (University of Maryland Baltimore) focused on patient-centered and equity-informed value assessment methods, presenting findings from a multi-stakeholder Delphi study and a US public preferences survey. The research showed broad support for incorporating wider societal and equity considerations into V/HTA, with 88% of respondents willing to make trade-offs to improve health equity. Reflecting on the role of stakeholder engagement, Slejko stated: “we learn a lot by asking.”
Coordinating the Quagmire: Real-World Evidence in Value Assessment in Later Stages of the Product Life Cycle
Attempting to prompt a more provocative discussion around the growing complexity of RWE use in value assessment and decision-making, Ambarish Ambegaonkar (APPERTURE LLC) opened the session with a “data, data everywhere” analogy, reflecting on the rapid expansion of RWD sources alongside continued uncertainty about how such evidence is ultimately used in payer, HTA, and regulatory decision-making. Framing the discussion around the later stages of a product lifecycle, Ambegaonkar questioned whether the increasing volume of RWE is translating into greater “decision clarity” and what evidence truly “moves the needle” in value assessment and access decisions.
Shanthy Krishnarajah (Johnson and Johnson) outlined how the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has increased the importance of comparative RWE in CMS drug price negotiations. She highlighted that products selected for negotiation often face therapeutic landscapes very different from those studied in pivotal trials. Using direct oral anticoagulants as an example, Krishnarajah explained how RWE and network meta-analyses become critical when original comparators such as warfarin are no longer clinically relevant. She noted that CMS increasingly evaluates clinical trials, observational studies, patient-reported information, and economic evidence together, particularly within Medicare populations. Krishnarajah argued that “RWE is no longer a supportive role, but a key determinant” in CMS evaluations.
Dan Ollendorf (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review [ICER]) discussed the uneven adoption of RWE within international HTA. He described current use as occurring “in pockets,” highlighting examples including the Cancer Drugs Fund in England and reassessment programs in Taiwan and France. Ollendorf also reviewed ICER’s growing use of RWE within CMS-focused assessments, including adherence and persistence analyses for COPD therapies. He emphasized the need for clearer governance, prospective protocols, transparency, and early evidence planning to reduce concerns around “cherry picking” and inconsistent findings across observational studies.
Representing the ISPOR policy and science perspective on behalf of Laura Pizzi (ISPOR), William Padula (University of Southern California) examined the broader “quagmire” facing RWE generation. He highlighted rising evidence demands driven by the IRA, EU HTA reform, and coverage-with-evidence-development models, alongside organizational disruption, fragmented evidence strategies, and limited C-suite understanding of RWE investment needs. Padula argued that organizations must begin integrating evidence generation planning far earlier in a product lifecycle, particularly given the long-term evidence demands emerging through Medicare negotiation and evolving HTA requirements.
Using the metaphor of a “compass to navigate the quagmire,” Padula outlined several priorities for improving decision-grade evidence generation. These included securing stronger executive-level support for RWE investment, horizon scanning for future policy changes, improving workforce training around regulatory and HTA requirements, mandating protocol registration and transparent reporting, and embedding measurable impact objectives into RWE programs from the outset. He also emphasized the importance of greater collaboration across industry, academia, and decision-makers to reduce duplication and improve methodological consistency. Concluding the discussion, Padula argued that organizations must move “from provision to partnership in evidence generation” while keeping “the patient as a north star.”
Pursuing Affordability Decision Rules: Towards Transparent, Evidence-Informed Budget Impact Thresholds
This Forum session examined one of the central tensions facing HTA today: how healthcare systems should approach interventions that may be clinically valuable and cost-effective, but potentially difficult to afford at scale. Moderated by Lotte Steuten, the discussion brought together perspectives from Marina Richardson (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review [ICER]), Scott Ramsey (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center), and Jeffrey T Hamilton (GSK), exploring whether budget impact thresholds can support more transparent and evidence-informed affordability decision-making.
Richardson outlined the approach used by ICER, emphasizing that budget impact thresholds should be viewed not as hard caps on access, but as “signals” intended to stimulate discussion around affordability challenges. Using examples including GLP-1 therapies and gene therapies, she highlighted the importance of transparency, publicly available inputs, and using affordability considerations alongside, rather than instead of, broader value assessment frameworks.
Ramsey provided a US payer perspective, arguing that commercial insurers value budget impact models but often require more customization, transparency, and acknowledgment of uncertainty. He emphasized that payer decisions are heavily influenced by factors such as population characteristics, uptake assumptions, rebates, time horizons, and utilization management approaches, while warning that highly visible therapies can quickly become political as well as economic discussions.
Representing industry, Hamilton stressed that affordability constraints are real, but cautioned against allowing budget impact thresholds to evolve into de facto coverage restrictions. He argued that affordability and value should remain distinct concepts, noting that highly innovative therapies, particularly preventative and long-term interventions, may generate benefits that extend beyond short-term budget horizons.
Across the discussion, panelists broadly agreed that affordability frameworks are likely to play a growing role within HTA, but emphasized that transparency, stakeholder engagement, and recognition of long-term value will remain critical to supporting both sustainable access and continued innovation.
Raising the Bar on RWE for Publication: A Discussion with Leading Journal Editors
This forum session explored how journals, researchers, reviewers, and professional societies can work together to improve the quality and transparency of RWE publications. Moderated by Sebastian Schneeweiss (Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School), the session featured Daniel Solomon (Arthritis and Rheumatology), Christine Laine (Annals of Internal Medicine), Gregory Curfman (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA]), and Shirley Wang (Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School) discussing the challenges associated with publishing RWE studies.
Solomon highlighted challenges including difficult datasets, unclear drug exposure definitions, censored data, and inconsistent analytical approaches, emphasizing the need for more methodological expertise among reviewers and editors, alongside greater standardization and more detailed protocols. Laine outlined both the strengths and limitations of RWD, noting that while RWD captures routine clinical practice and large patient populations, concerns remain around confounding, data quality, inconsistent definitions, and false precision arising from extensive modeling. She also highlighted Annals of Internal Medicine’s use of reproducible research statements and methodological review processes to strengthen transparency.
Curfman discussed the growing role of observational studies and target trial emulation, stressing that while randomized controlled trials remain important, robust RWE can provide valuable complementary evidence when limitations and assumptions are clearly acknowledged. Closing the session, Wang emphasized that transparency and reproducibility are essential to strengthening trust in RWE. A recurring message across the discussion was that transparency alone does not guarantee validity – but without transparency, validity becomes far more difficult to assess.
Looking ahead to Day 3
As ISPOR 2026 draws to a close, Day 3 will focus on global perspectives, emerging methodologies, and the future direction of HEOR.
The final plenary, “Innovation Under Pressure: How Will US Drug Policy Reshape Innovation, Evidence, and Access Globally?”, will examine how US policy developments are influencing global markets, evidence generation, and long-term incentives for innovation. A spotlight session on transparent, validated AI workflows in HTA will also highlight the growing importance of credibility and trust in AI-enabled evidence.
Check back for our coverage of the plenary and highlights from key sessions across Day 3.
| Register for free today to become a member of The Evidence Base and receive the latest news straight to your inbox. |