Health

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation

Research Centre

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

51�Թ�� Business School's Professor Franco Sassi interviews Leon co-founder Henry Dimbleby about the nation's relationship with UPFs and how to change it

Main image: Henry Dimbleby

5 minute read

Off

Alumni blog: From 51�Թ�� to the Workplace - My Career Journey So Far

Francesca Hoare — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 09:31:29 +0000

Alumni blog: From 51�Թ�� to the Workplace - My Career Journey So Far

Francesca Hoare Tue, 04/03/2025 - 09:31

9 July 2026 Alumni

Alumni Q&A: Florence Perramond, Climate Change, Management & Finance 2022

1 June 2026 Alumni

Lessons, insights and early career advice from 51�Թ�� Business School Master’s alumni

29 May 2026 Alumni

Real career advice from 51�Թ�� MBA alumni

We recently caught up with alumni from 51�Թ�� Business School’s Full-Time MBA, Weekend MBA and Global Online MBA programmes, who shared insights and advice into succeeding in your career post-MBA studies. Read what they have to say in this blog.

12 November 2021

Alumni

In my last article, I gave you an overview of my time at 51�Թ��, why I went to the Business School and how it helped me transition into the workplace. Here I’ll delve deeper into my decision to do more business-focused roles in science industries and how my time at 51�Թ�� influenced the choices I’ve made.

Exploring through internships

Whilst I was at 51�Թ��, I was unsure what I wanted to do after graduating, so I experimented by doing several internships in very different areas. This included the charity sector, a social enterprise and a pharmaceutical company (GSK). I was pretty much taking a shot in the dark with each one to see what stuck! The first two were not science related at all, but gave me some experience in events and marketing. At GSK, I did a HR role, and was happy to work in a science-led organisation.

I also attended A LOT of careers fairs and talks, where I networked with many employers. Mostly, they were banks or consulting firms talking about science graduates going into these fields. But I also discovered some interesting potential paths that I had never heard about before. Some healthcare-based charities came and spoke about roles in Science Policy. A patent attorney gave a talk about intellectual property and patent law being an alternative career path for scientists. The more I spoke to people about these fields and did my own research, the more I discovered other fields like Science Communication, Science Education & Outreach, Life Sciences Consulting, Teaching, Clinical Operations, Regulatory Affairs, Business Operations….the list goes on.

Discovering all my options

Suddenly, there were almost too many choices for me as a Biology graduate! Luckily, I was able to extend my degree for a year to do Management at the Business School. I knew this was the right option because I was sure I wanted a business-focused role. I thought I would be more suited to work where business skills like project management or communication were needed. When I did those internships, I felt more fulfilled than doing research projects at university. A lot of this was because of the real world, practical application I was able to experience in the workplace.

I ended up landing a graduate job on GSK’s HR Future Leaders Programme. In the Pharmaceutical sector, I got exposure to an almost overwhelming number of roles you can do in the science industry. Working in HR in the Pharma industry was great because I built a foundation of business skills that I can now transfer to a wide range of roles across industries. It is also where my interest in supporting others with their development was ignited. I rotated around four different areas of the company before being promoted to a HR Manager role, so in total I did five roles there. Mostly, I ended up working with Research & Development departments, which meant I could work closely with scientists and others in science-related roles. It gave me a sense of fulfilment to keep a link to my science background and support the work of scientists, without having to directly do the research myself!

Luckily, I was able to extend my degree for a year to do Management at the Business School. I knew this was the right option because I was sure I wanted a business-focused role. I thought I would be more suited to work where business skills like project management or communication were needed.

Where I am now

I decided to leave GSK and explore different science-led industries through volunteering and networking. During this time I also started Outside the Lab to support others with their career development in non-academic roles. I volunteered at the Cultural Events team at the Science Museum Group and now work in Research Grants & Funding, supporting researchers to apply for funding for health-care related studies.

All the way, I’ve been able to keep my link to science and apply business skills at the same time, which is exactly what my degree in Biology with Management set me up to do. It’s been really fulfilling to know that both parts of my degree are relevant to my career.

If you interested in taking your career outside the lab and want to know how to start, you can watch Batool’s webinar on How Science Graduates Can Get a High Paying Job Outside the Lab Even if You Have Little to No Work Experience.

Careers

Programme

Joint Honours

3 minute read

Alumni Q&A: Irfan Khan (MBA 2000)

Francesca Hoare — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:19 +0000

Alumni Q&A: Irfan Khan (MBA 2000)

Francesca Hoare Thu, 27/02/2025 - 09:26

29 May 2026 Alumni

Real career advice from 51�Թ�� MBA alumni

4 March 2026 Alumni

Besnik Mustafa (Weekend MBA 2025)

After beginning his career at Finance Think, Besnik Mustafa went on to advise Members of Parliament in North Macedonia. He later joined Salience Consulting, gaining experience across multiple international markets.

6 November 2025 Alumni

Joanne Linder, Full-Time MBA 1996

Joanne Linder, Full-Time MBA 1996, is one of the Business School’s most dedicated alumni volunteers. She joined the Alumni Advisory Council (AAC) 13 years ago and was appointed Chair just a year later, providing steady leadership through a period of significant change.

21 March 2025

Alumni

Irfan Khan completed his MSC in Engineering & Physical Science in Medicine at 51�Թ�� before going on to study for his MBA at 51�Թ�� Business School in 2000. Irfan is a visionary leader with over 25 years of experience dedicated to transforming healthcare in emerging markets, particularly in South Asia and Africa. As the Group CEO of Evercare Healthcare Group, he oversees a network of hospitals and clinics, pioneering patient-centered, sustainable healthcare systems. Renowned for his strategic foresight and empathy-driven leadership, Irfan has championed initiatives that enhance healthcare accessibility, affordability, and quality. His legacy includes fostering talent development, advancing digital health innovations, and building resilient systems to serve underserved communities. Irfan's work exemplifies a lifelong commitment to ethical, impactful healthcare leadership.

How did your studies at 51�Թ�� help inform your career in the healthcare sector?

Having come from an engineering background, my MSc in Engineering & Physical Science in Medicine at 51�Թ�� was my first experience of working in healthcare. We had the opportunity to work with clinicians and doctors, and it helped me to gain a much deeper understanding of medicine. I did my MBA at 51�Թ�� a few years later, which brought together the two pieces of the puzzle, business and medicine, to give me a holistic understanding of the healthcare industry.

My specialisation during my MBA was customer-focused strategy, which has been key to my work in hospitals. Healthcare is an emotional industry—you are dealing with people who are unwell, often someone’s friend or family member—so understanding a patient-centric approach was incredibly important.

51�Թ��'s strength lies in its diverse student body and wide range of courses. Pursuing my MBA at a STEM-focused university was highly beneficial, as it naturally integrated science, technology, and medicine concepts.

What professional achievement are you most proud of?

For me, the standout achievement is about the people I work with. I think one of the major mandates of leadership is to build other leaders, not to just have followers, and I’m very proud of the talent I’ve helped to nurture in the countries we work in.

At Evercare, we operate in the emerging markets such as Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan. It can be the case that future leaders in these markets end up leaving the country and taking their skills elsewhere. I have taken a personal interest in identifying, developing, and retaining future leaders within the countries where we operate.

There is no single formula for identifying aspiring leaders. The most important quality is a strong desire to learn. We can then get them the opportunities and qualifications they need to move forwards.

What do you think are the most important qualities for someone in a leadership position?

When you are in a leadership position, being a good communicator and an empathetic leader is very important.

I’d also say integrity for leaders is key. This is especially the case in a sector like healthcare where quality, ethics and patient safety must be paramount. In healthcare, we are responsible for people's lives, so there can be no compromise.

I work across lots of different cultures and countries, and there is one basic principle which applies everywhere, which is respect. You must be humble and willing to learn from each other.

What drew you to study in the UK and 51�Թ��?

I chose 51�Թ�� for its reputation. Whenever I watched science or technology news, many of the experts featured were from 51�Թ��. I think London is an amazing city to be a student in – it’s diverse, accepting and so well connected. It was a no-brainer really!

What does it mean for you to be an alumnus of 51�Թ��?

Studying at 51�Թ�� is one of the best decisions I made in my life! When you tell people where you did your degree, it automatically brings a level of respect to the table. I have spent a good 25 years building my career and I think a lot can be attributed to the solid foundation I got from 51�Թ��.

It’s important for me to give back—whether by giving talks or providing opportunities for 51�Թ�� students to gain work experience in our hospitals.

The world is increasingly complex, with many career options available. I want to help students navigate these opportunities. Many people may not consider a career in healthcare unless they are doctors or nurses. However, it is an incredibly rewarding field with diverse opportunities.

Programme

3 minute read

Why professional networks are vital to healthcare innovation

Marisa Miraldo — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:54:30 +0000

Why professional networks are vital to healthcare innovation

Marisa Miraldo Mon, 20/01/2025 - 14:54

21 January 2025

Back in 2000, English health authorities issued guidance for an innovative form of keyhole surgery. This promised a less invasive way of treating colorectal cancer, which is the third most common cancer in the world and responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. For decades, doctors had treated this condition with open surgery, but the new procedure carried a better survival rate, patients tended to recover faster and it cost less.

Despite this, doctors were reluctant to adopt it. As a procedure, it required new skills and the learning curve was steep. Even when England’s National Institute for Health & Care Excellence evaluated it as a cost-effective treatment alternative in 2006, uptake among surgeons remained sluggish.

An encouraging environment is critical for new methods and techniques to spread

We interviewed surgeons in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and, while some were enthusiastic about the new procedure, others were reluctant. “We all like to stick with things we know work,” one surgeon, who’d persisted with conventional methods, told us. “I think there’s a lot of innate conservatives and we do require… an innovation to prove itself before we adopt it.”

Crucially, there was no easy way for surgeons to learn the new technique, which requires much practice to perfect. Could more have been done to encourage and inspire doctors to adopt the new approach? What governs the speed of uptake of novel techniques such as this among medical professionals? Were some doctors more influential than others?

Spreading healthcare innovation

It’s important we understand the different ways innovation spreads, because once a doctor reaches the senior status of consultant, there is no further formal NHS training for new procedures. If doctors are to innovate, they must often take the initiative themselves.

Colleagues can be important sources of encouragement, either by sharing their perceived value of the technology or their own experiences with it. An encouraging environment is critical for new methods and techniques to spread.

Our research, carried out by a team of academics from 51�Թ��'s Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation, the University of Toulouse Capitole and University of Queensland, incorporates a vast quantity of data, all anonymised. These included details of all patients treated by the NHS between 2000 and 2014. We also used details on NHS doctors’ careers as they progressed to consultant level and their clinical choices, where they have practised and with whom, and their demographic and education details.

These data enabled us to characterise each consultant professional network and how it evolved as well as the uptake of the technology in each network. In all, we honed in on nearly 1,500 consultants responsible for more than nine in 10 colorectal cancer surgeries in England during the 14-year window.

These were our three key findings:

The larger doctors’ networks are, the more likely they are to use keyhole surgery.
The more often an innovative procedure is performed within an individual’s professional network, the more likely they are to use it too. This became more pronounced according to an individual surgeon’s experience: more experienced doctors were found to have a stronger effect on their colleagues.
We also spotted the role of those we’ve termed "key players" – influential doctors whose use of the procedure inspired a greater share of colleagues to follow suit.

The key players

While it is the more experienced doctors or the pioneers in the uptake of the innovation who are the most influential in their network, we found less experienced doctors are more likely to adopt the innovation as a result of peer influence. This means they develop into effective innovation ambassadors themselves. We also found "key players" are more likely to be working in the kinds of hospitals with greater regulatory freedom and which are more open to innovation.

When we ran an experiment to see whether a training campaign that targeted the most influential doctors would improve uptake, our simulation found this would have boosted use of the novel surgery by 20 per cent – with substantial health benefits for patients and cost savings for the NHS.

Our work shows that guidelines, in combination with ad-hoc training programmes that don’t factor network effects in their design, are not the most effective strategies to ensure uptake of cost effective innovation.

Our work also reveals a dearth of information about doctors themselves. Our health systems know all about the demand side, such as patients’ characteristics, but almost nothing about the doctors who treat them. If authorities want to improve health and lower costs, researchers need more detailed information about the professionals who deliver care and their characteristics, as well as their attitudes towards innovation.

This article draws on findings from "Innovation Diffusion among Coworkers: Evidence from Senior Doctors" by Eliana Barrenho (51�Թ�� London), Eric Gautier (University of Toulouse Capitole), Marisa Miraldo (51�Թ�� London), Carol Propper (51�Թ�� London) and Christiern Rose (University of Queensland).

Innovation

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation

Research Centre

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Developing innovative healthcare practices is a big challenge, but getting doctors to adopt them once they exist is yet another barrier to improving patient healthcare.

Main image: elenabs/iStock via Getty Images Plus

4 minute read

Off

How climate change is making our health worse: Yahoo News quotes Professor Marisa Miraldo

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:56:32 +0000

How climate change is making our health worse: Yahoo News quotes Professor Marisa Miraldo Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 20/01/2025 - 09:56

16 January 2025

Climate Change

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

Carol Propper Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

9 September 2026 Knowledge

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations rethink the role of bosses. But who really has the power?

27 August 2026 Knowledge

Do big bonuses really affect employee behaviour?

3 August 2026 Knowledge

Why making AI too easy to use is a risk for business

23 June 2026

Article at a glance:

Over the past 20 years, governments have turned to market reforms and competition to curb costs and raise standards in healthcare.
Patient choice has increased, but more support is needed to help those who are less able to exercise this choice.
Proactive scrutiny of mergers, alongside quality incentives and openness to new providers and modes of care, could ensure integration improves care rather than re-establishing local monopolies.

Healthcare functions differently from other product markets due to the importance of maintaining equity in access to care and quality of care. As a result, government intervention is high and healthcare markets are heavily regulated.

However, the cost of healthcare has steadily risen worldwide. In 2000, the average healthcare expenditure in the OECD was 8.1 per cent of GDP, which has since risen to 9.3 per cent of GDP. In the UK, this has risen from around 7 per cent in 2000 to over 11 per cent in recent years. In a bid to reduce these cost increases, governments have introduced reforms to make use of markets in healthcare.

These focus on increasing the role of patient choice and promoting competition between providers, such as hospitals and primary care settings. But does choice and competition actually improve quality of care for patients? Our research reviews the evidence on market reforms in healthcare to shed light on this.

This is important as, even though market reforms featured more prominently in healthcare policy discussions in the past two decades, current priorities such as digitisation and moving healthcare into the community may also rely on competition and patient choice to succeed. Similarly, plans around integrated care and consolidation may benefit from a nuanced understanding of how competition and monopolies affect patient outcomes.

A mixed picture

What’s clear from the findings is that increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given. Evidence from the UK and Norway, for example, suggests that allowing patients to choose between providers (without any cost competition) can have a positive impact on patient mortality in emergency settings.

Research also suggests that patients respond to quality differences when choosing a provider. However, choice for some may be limited and there are demographic differences, with low-income patients more likely to register with poorly rated providers, partly because they lack the information networks of higher income peers.

Competition also introduces new modes of care. Deregulation has led to a rise in online provision, and in care being delivered by substitutes such as pharmacists and nurse practitioners. Evidence suggests these alternatives can provide similar outcomes to in-person care, offering greater convenience for patients and potential cost savings for providers. However, patients who use online consultations may also be more likely to require in-person follow-ups, partially offsetting those benefits.

Greater market freedom has also led to a wave of hospital mergers in some countries, reducing the number of providers and the competitive pressure between them. While concentrating some specialist services in larger centres can have benefits, mergers do not automatically improve quality, productivity or cost, and sometimes make healthcare more expensive. Without strong regulatory oversight, integration and consolidation could risk recreating the same local monopolies that market reforms aimed to reduce.

Areas for improvement

One important way to increase the benefits for patients is by improving access to clear, high-quality information. Rather than simply publishing information and hoping people read it, offering responsive, detailed comparison tools can help people to be better-informed, helping them reach decisions based on their individual needs. Community outreach programmes can help level the playing field, ensuring information does not only benefit those who are already better-informed.

On a macro level, many countries already have the power to scrutinise mergers that limit choice and offer little benefit, but this has often been underused. Using these powers more proactively would help ensure mergers add value, keep markets open to new entrants, and maintain competitive pressure on established providers.

"Increased choice through market reforms can improve quality of care, but this is not a given."

There is also a need to support integrated care while ensuring it does not recreate monopolies that deny patient choice. Regulators should prevent integrated providers from directing patients towards their own affiliated services regardless of quality. Where mergers are permitted, price regulation and quality incentives – such as shared savings models tied to measurable outcomes – can help ensure they genuinely benefit patients.

Regulation can also help keep markets open to new approaches. Allowing well-qualified substitutes such as nurse practitioners to deliver care, and new modes of care such as online consultations can expand choice and capacity, provided quality is closely monitored as the evidence base develops. This is particularly relevant in the context of the benchmarking approaches such as the updated NHS Performance Assessment Framework, where high-performing providers may be given more leeway to test innovative approaches.

Overall, market reforms have given patients greater choice and offer real potential for improvements in care. However, they have not yet fully delivered to the extent policymakers hoped. Better information for patients and stronger, more proactive regulation are the keys to changing this, preventing the re-emergence of monopolies and maximising the benefits of new options and approaches to care.

Find out more about the research

Read Professor Propper's paper

Digital transformation

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Governments intend market reforms to boost efficiencies in healthcare while improving outcomes. While this has led to greater patient choice, stronger regulation is needed to prevent monopolies, keep markets open to new entrants and maximise gains.

4 minute read

Off

Opinion: “Good science” needs purpose, accountability and an explicit ethical stance

Marisa Miraldo — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Opinion: “Good science” needs purpose, accountability and an explicit ethical stance

Marisa Miraldo Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

9 September 2026 Knowledge

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations rethink the role of bosses. But who really has the power?

27 August 2026 Knowledge

Do big bonuses really affect employee behaviour?

3 August 2026 Knowledge

Why making AI too easy to use is a risk for business

5 March 2026

We like to pretend that science is neutral – that our work is insulated from politics, economics and power. But it isn’t. The funding we receive, the methods we choose and, crucially, the questions we ask – and those we never ask – are shaped by funding, performance metrics, history, social norms, and our own biases. To act as if science floats above these forces is not only naïve, it’s irresponsible.

From the 19th century onwards, scientific institutions were deeply entangled with military power, industrial productivity and colonial rule. Funding priorities were set around national prestige and economic gains. Universities adapted by building reward systems around publications, citations, patents and grants. Generations of researchers were trained to see themselves as specialists accountable primarily to peers and promotion committees not to the communities affected by their work. Within this system, a comforting narrative took hold: “I just do the science; what others do with it is not my responsibility.”

Science that harmed

As a professor, I am painfully aware of the historical lessons that demonstrate how damaging scientific work framed as progress can be.

One example is the many leading scientists and physicians who believed they were helping society while promoting eugenics. In practice, it justified forced sterilisation, institutionalisation, and the brutalisation of disabled people, the impoverished, and racialised communities. Meanwhile, the science was wrapped in the language of public good, making it harder to challenge. The echoes of eugenic assumptions that some lives are less desirable persists today, reminding us of the lasting harm scientists can have on society.

Today, algorithmic systems and social media recommendation systems designed to “maximise engagement” have contributed to polarisation, harassment and mental distress. Built by people who may have wanted to “connect the world” or “democratise access” these systems operate in institutional settings that reward growth, not care.

A pattern emerges: decisions are made far from those most affected and the social, historical, and political dimensions of science are often treated as secondary, if they are acknowledged at all.

Ethical science requires governance that travels with the technology – from research question to deployment – and includes the people and communities most affected.

A manifesto for socially responsible science

If good intentions are not enough, what would it take to change? A manifesto is, by definition, unfinished – it is an invitation to collective work. But I would like to start the conversation by setting out some clear commitments.

1. Name the politics of science, openly and early. Make our values explicit in the design, conduct, and communication of research.

2. Redefine excellence. Treat equity, representation, and long-term social and environmental consequences as core criteria of quality.

3. Practice convergence, not siloed brilliance. Treat lived experience, social sciences and the arts as essential intelligence, not decorative.

4. Share power with those most affected. Move beyond token consultation. Communities and groups most affected by research hold real decision-making power over priorities, methods, data governance, and evaluation of impact.

5. Build systematic processes to surface potential harms, including those that fall outside our immediate field of view.

6. Align incentives with responsibility. Push institutions and funders to reward collaborative and justice-oriented science – in hiring, promotion and grant allocation.

7. Refuse institutional silence and require them to align their investments, partnerships, and policies accordingly.

8. Protect dissent and whistleblowing within science to create a culture that produces socially responsible knowledge.

9. Educate for responsibility, not just technique. Embed history, ethics, social theory, and critical reflection into scientific training. Students must learn not just how to generate but how to situate it in the world and be transformational leaders.

10. Hold ourselves accountable. When we invoke “science for humanity,” “precision health,” or “sustainability,” we treat those words as obligations, not slogans. We measure ourselves against the lived experiences of people and ecosystems, not just against citation counts and patents.

How ethical science is embedded in practice

At a time when “science” is simultaneously invoked to defend public policy and attacked as elitist, I believe good science needs purpose, accountability and an explicit ethical stance. These do not sit only in labs and universities: they run through funders, regulators, publishers, governments and yes, businesses that decide what gets built, scaled, and sold.

Initiatives like 51�Թ��’s School of Convergence Science, where I am Co-Director, the Good Science Project, and the “Science for Humanity” strategy, create spaces that prioritise impact and values, question incentives, and redesign how we judge excellence. They will matter insofar as they shift incentives and decision-making: who sits at the table, what counts as excellence, and how harms are identified and acted on.

The question now is whether we are prepared to turn those intentions into structures, commitments, and convergent practices that make responsibility – not just discovery – the organising principle of what counts as excellent science.

Learn more about the Good Science Project

Discover the College-wide initiative

Economy

Education and Learning

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Scientific research needs to extend beyond good intentions. This is my manifesto for socially responsible science – and why it is so desperately needed

Main image: sanjeri / iStock via Getty Images

4 minute read

Off

Jónas Oddur Jónasson on how healthcare systems can work better for people

Shamita Harsh — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Jónas Oddur Jónasson on how healthcare systems can work better for people

Shamita Harsh Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

9 September 2026 Knowledge

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations rethink the role of bosses. But who really has the power?

27 August 2026 Knowledge

Do big bonuses really affect employee behaviour?

3 August 2026 Knowledge

Why making AI too easy to use is a risk for business

29 September 2025

Dr Jónasson’s research focuses on how analytics and operations can improve healthcare delivery in resource-limited settings. As Associate Professor of Analytics & Operations at 51�Թ�� Business School, Dr Jónasson is keen to continue developing models that link operational decisions to patient outcomes and public health. His work spans emergency medical services, behavioural health interventions and global health delivery, with collaborations in the UK, Africa and beyond.

His work develops data-driven models to address the pressing operational challenges faced by health systems—from emergency medical services in urban centres to behavioural health interventions and community-based care in lower-income regions.

A defining feature of Dr Jónasson’s approach is his commitment to making research actionable. His collaborations with organisations such as the London Ambulance Service, Riders for Health in Malawi, Keheala in Kenya and the Clinton Health Access Initiative in Mozambique, demonstrate how carefully designed operations models can be translated into meaningful improvements on the ground.

This focus on impact is also evident in his scholarship. His research has been published in leading journals including Operations Research, Management Science, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, and BMJ Global Health. Beyond publication, he contributes to shaping the field as an associate editor for Management Science and IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering.

Academic journey and recognition for research excellence

Dr Jónasson began his academic career in Europe, earning a BSc in Industrial Engineering from the University of Iceland before pursuing postgraduate study in the UK. He completed an MSc in Operational Research at the London School of Economics, an MPhil at the University of Cambridge, and both an MRes and a PhD in Management Science & Operations at London Business School.

Before joining 51�Թ��, he spent nearly a decade at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloan School of Management, where he rose from Assistant to Associate Professor of Operations Management. His time at MIT further cemented his reputation as a leader in the study of healthcare operations, while also giving him the opportunity to work closely with healthcare practitioners and global health organisations.

Dr Jónasson’s contributions have earned international recognition. He received the prestigious Bonder Scholarship for applied Operations Research in Health Services in 2014. His work has since been awarded the M&SOM Practice-Based Research Competition prize (2021) and the William Pierskalla award for best paper in Healthcare Management Science (2024). He has also been a finalist for the Sanjay and Panna Mehrotra Research Excellence Award (2021) and twice for the MSOM Society Award for Responsible Research (in 2019 and 2024). These honours underscore the impact of his research in advancing both rigorous scholarship and socially responsible practice.

Looking ahead at 51�Թ��

At 51�Թ��, Dr Jónasson is excited to continue building bridges between rigorous research and healthcare practice.

Reflecting on his move, he said: "I am thrilled to join 51�Թ�� Business School and to work alongside outstanding colleagues in Analytics and Operations. What makes this especially exciting for me is that few business schools in the world can match 51�Թ��’s environment: a top technical university, an exceptional medical school and a leading school of public health. For someone working on health and healthcare, this combination—in my favourite city—is a rare and special opportunity.”

Dr Jónasson looks forward to advancing research that not only deepens academic understanding of healthcare operations but also creates lasting impact for healthcare provides policymakers, patients and communities worldwide.

Read about the new faculty joining the Business School

Explore our latest faculty appointments

Knowledge Categories

Marketing

Academic area

Analytics & Operations

Designing systems that build bridges between rigorous research and healthcare practice

Main image: Jónas Oddur Jónasson

3 minute read

Off

Jasmin Moshfegh on the economics of healthcare innovation

Shamita Harsh — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Jasmin Moshfegh on the economics of healthcare innovation

Shamita Harsh Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

9 September 2026 Knowledge

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations rethink the role of bosses. But who really has the power?

27 August 2026 Knowledge

Do big bonuses really affect employee behaviour?

3 August 2026 Knowledge

Why making AI too easy to use is a risk for business

30 September 2025

Understanding how new medical technologies diffuse through health systems, especially including who gets access to them, is central to Dr Jasmin Moshfegh’s research. Joining 51�Թ�� Business School in 2025 as Assistant Professor of Economics & Public Policy, she brings a research agenda that sits at the intersection of health economics and healthcare innovation.

How precision medicine and health equity intersect

Her work examines the causes and consequences of healthcare innovation, with a focus on precision medicine, AI and assisted reproductive technologies. By combining quasi-experimental methods with large administrative datasets and cancer registries, she sheds light on how institutional and policy choices shape both efficiency and equity in healthcare delivery.

Her job market paper, supported by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), studies the adoption of genomic testing in breast cancer care—showing that while precision medicine can reduce unnecessary treatments, it may also exacerbate racial disparities.

Dr Moshfegh completed her PhD in Health Policy (Economics) at Stanford University, where she was also a T32 Fellow and R36 awardee from AHRQ. She went on to hold a Postdoctoral Fellowship at Stanford, alongside appointments as a Fellow at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Her research has been supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the SIEPR George P. Shultz Fund and the Sweden-America Foundation.

Extending research into new frontiers

Dr Moshfegh studies the causes and consequences of healthcare innovation, with a particular focus on information technologies. She is extending her work to explore the impact of next-generation diabetes drugs in the US Veterans population and the role of AI tools in improving women’s health in India.

Reflecting on her move to London, she said: “What excites me most about joining 51�Թ�� is the opportunity to be part of a department and institution that sits at the intersection of cutting-edge research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and real-world impact. 51�Թ��’s unique ecosystem brings these disciplines together in a way that few other places can.”

Read about the new faculty joining the Business School

Explore our latest faculty appointments

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Dr Moshfegh discusses how her research in precision medicine is aimed at reducing health inequalities

Main image: Jasmin Moshfegh

2 minute read

Off

Bold goals, missed levers: Will the NHS 10-Year Health Plan go far enough?

Jack Olney — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Bold goals, missed levers: Will the NHS 10-Year Health Plan go far enough?

Jack Olney Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

9 September 2026 Knowledge

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations rethink the role of bosses. But who really has the power?

27 August 2026 Knowledge

Do big bonuses really affect employee behaviour?

3 August 2026 Knowledge

Why making AI too easy to use is a risk for business

29 September 2025

Healthy diets, exercise and healthy habits – the goals are deceptively simple but persuading the public is complicated. The NHS’s new 10-Year Health Plan for England signals a welcome focus on prevention rather than cure, tackling tobacco, alcohol, junk food and other causes of ill health. But could the plan go further?

Could the UK build on its success with the pioneering "sugar tax" to help slash consumption of sugary foods – and extend a similar levy more widely? Research by Professor Franco Sassi, Director of the Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation (CHEPI) at 51�Թ�� Business School, indicates the government could be bolder still.

CHEPI’s research reveals that not all proposals within the plan are backed by research. A focus on low alcohol drinks for instance could be counterproductive as the advertising of branded low alcohol alternatives is fuelling appetites for their alcoholic counterparts.

But the plan heralds a welcome shift in mindset and an urgent attempt to nip health problems in the bud. Ending the obesity epidemic is a “moonshot”, but inaction already costs the NHS an estimated £19 billion a year.

Fiscal tools for prevention

Are policy makers neglecting fiscal tools in tackling the crisis?

The UK’s sugar tax showed how effective economic incentives can be. More than half of drink manufacturers cut sugar content before the levy was introduced, and sales of sugary drinks fell afterwards.

CHEPI’s research has shown that an expansion of a tax similar to the Soft Drinks Industry Levy to encompass sugary foods more widely could cut sugar purchases by as much as 38 per cent in some foods. Other fiscal measures identified by Professor Sassi and CHEPI’s research that the government could deploy — such as a tax based on nutrient thresholds— could cut purchases of sugar and calories by up to 15 per cent.

Companies that heavily advertise their low or no alcohol alternatives go on to increase sales of their same-brand alcoholic beer – in other words, encouraging low alcohol brands inadvertently fuels alcohol consumption, among light drinkers, according to research by Dr Stijn Maesen at 51�Թ�� Business School.

Policy makers could avoid this “halo effect” by restricting ads for both low and high alcohol products, while emphasising genuine health benefits such as fewer calories. Low alcohol alternatives still play a role, particularly for anyone trying to cut back as it’s the heavy drinkers who are most likely to consume them.

But there are equity concerns: low alcohol drinks are often more expensive, meaning the heaviest health burdens – which fall on deprived groups – are not alleviated. Ensuring affordability must be part of the strategy if inequity is to be addressed.

Navigating the junk food market and corporate accountability

Proposed restrictions on the marketing of junk food and sale of caffeinated drinks to young people are overdue. Evidence shows that reducing exposure to unhealthy food and drink reduces consumption of these products, especially in young people. Regulation could be even more effective if it were to extend to brand marketing and digital media and incentivise the promotion of healthy products

In a world first, the plan requires large food companies to report the healthiness of the food they sell – this will inform new mandatory healthiness targets on food sales. This is ambitious and welcome – “Our research shows that policies must tackle both demand and supply factors behind poor diets,” says Professor Sassi, “which means not only educating and incentivising consumers but also mandating reformulation and responsible marketing by industry.”

Today, the poorest 20 per cent of households need to spend half of their disposable income to eat a recommended healthy diet, compared with just 11 per cent for the richest 20 per cent. Better access to free school meals, food vouchers and higher nutritional standards in schools outlined in the plan are a promising step towards redressing the imbalance.

Weight loss drugs for obesity embraced by the plan show strong short-term results but should only complement rather than replace policies such as encouraging physical activity and healthier diets which yield longer term benefits.

Digital tools and behaviour change

New health rewards and ambitious partnerships with fitness experts proposed in the plan could encourage people to become more active. CHEPI’s research reveals that the wearables and digital health technology embraced here do indeed help people get and stay fitter.

Research by Professor Marisa Miraldo shows that programmes that tap into peer support and existing social networks can amplify the impact of rewards for healthy choices. But these schemes must be accessible to the people who need them most – not just the healthy – with interventions designed for specific communities, or with higher rewards and incentives for those at greater risk of unhealthy lifestyles.

The reasons people choose to smoke, drink, or eat poorly are complex, and behavioural science reveals the risk that individuals will revert to former unhealthy habits once a scheme ends. This can be avoided with the careful design of a programme which draws on behavioural insights and fosters intrinsic motivation - gradually building stable habits by combining rewards with education and social recognition for instance, or by making healthy activities enjoyable.

Preventative healthcare investment can result in a more productive workforce

Poor health is a human tragedy but also an economic drain. Obesity and related diseases cut the UK’s economic output by 3.4 per cent of GDP - that’s equivalent to an annual tax per person of £409.

Investing in prevention is not just good for health; it strengthens the economy by creating a more productive workforce and reducing healthcare costs. But prevention requires sustained funding, political will and collaboration across sectors – all of which have too often been sidelined by short-term crises.

The NHS 10-Year Health Plan heralds a significant shift of mindset from reactive care to proactive prevention, but the question is not whether the UK can afford to invest in prevention, but whether it can afford not to.

This piece brings expertise from across CHEPI and 51�Թ�� Business School, including Professor Franco Sassi, Professor Marisa Miraldo and Dr Stijn Maesen.

Find out more

Policy

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation

Research Centre

Knowledge Categories