hero image
Joel W. Hay, PhD - USC School of Pharmacy. Los Angeles, CA, US

Joel W. Hay, PhD Joel W. Hay, PhD

Professor of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics | USC School of Pharmacy


Joel Hay's research focuses on pharmacoeconomics, outcomes research, pharmaceutical care, health economics and econometrics.






Insurance Innovation: How to Succeed after Reform -- and Repeal (Joel Hay)


Social Media


Joel Hay is a professor of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics at the USC School of Pharmacy, with joint appointments in the USC Schaeffer Center and the Department of Economics in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. He was the founding chair of the former Department of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy at the School of Pharmacy.

He also serves as the USC project coordinator for the Rand Evidence-Based Medicine Practice Centers of Southern California, funded by the U.S. Agency for Health Research and Quality, and co-investigator at the USC Alzheimer Research Center, funded by the California Department of Health Services. He is a health economics research scholar at the UCLA Center for Vaccine Research. He is a founding executive board member of the American Society for Health Economics and of the International Society for Pharmaceutical Economics and Outcomes Research.

Hay was founding editor-in-chief of Value in Health, the peer-reviewed scientific journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, until 2003. This journal, started in 1998, became Medline-listed in 2002.Value in Health was ranked #1 in two categories for 2004 by the ISI Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) with an impact factor of 3.657. Value in Health led all other journals listed both in the Health Care Sciences and Services category in the JCR Science edition and in the Health Policy & Services category in the JCR Social Sciences edition.

He has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed scientific articles, abstracts, editorials and reports in the fields of pharmaceutical economics, health economics, outcomes research, disease management, statistics, econometrics, epidemiology and healthcare.

Areas of Expertise (10)

Sociological Costs of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Health Insurance Reform

Health Care Markets


Pharmaceutical Care


Outcomes Research

Health Economics

Pharmaceutical Economics

Drug Legalization

Education (4)

Yale University: Ph.D., Economics 1980

Yale University: M.Phil, Economics 1976

Yale University: M.A., Economics 1975

Amherst College: B.A., Economics 1974

Affiliations (5)

  • Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
  • American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
  • American Economic Association
  • American Public Health Association
  • American Society of Health Economists

Selected Articles (5)

Behavioral economics interventions to improve outpatient antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections: a cost-effectiveness analysis Journal of General Internal Medicine

Cynthia L Gong, Kenneth M Zangwill, Joel W Hay, Daniella Meeker, Jason N Doctor


Behavioral economics interventions have been shown to effectively reduce the rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory infections (ARIs).

view more

Cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib dose optimization schedule in metastatic colorectal cancer Journal of Clinical Oncology

Afsaneh Barzi, Sang K Cho, Joel W Hay, Heinz-Josef Lenz, Fang-Shu Ou, Axel Grothey, Tanios S Bekaii-Saab


Regorafenib at 160mg daily 21/28 days is a standard therapeutic option in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the cost of treatment and management of its side-effects is more than the cost-effectiveness threshold for oncology drugs in US and many countries around the world. ReDOS (Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study), is a randomized phase II trial in refractory mCRC and established that weekly dose escalation of regorafenib over the conventional dosing is superior in the composite endpoint of safety and efficacy. We explored the impact of the new dosing strategy on CE of regorafenib. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib (standard), regorafenib (ReDOS), and best supportive care (BSC). Model inputs for clinical efficacy and safety were from the CORRECT trial for regorafenib (standard) and BSC, and the ReDOS study for regorafenib (ReDOS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The model used a US payer’s perspective with 5% annual discount rate, and all costs were measured in 2018 US dollars. Results: Regorafenib (ReDOS) dominated regorafenib (standard), producing higher quality-adjusted life years at a lower cost. When compared to BSC, regorafenib (ReDOS) resulted in the ICER of $112,705 while regorafenib (standard) resulted in the ICER of $384,687. The most influential parameters on the ICERs were efficacy and health state utility parameters under univariate sensitivity analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, regorafenib (ReDOS) was more cost-effective than regorafenib (standard) and BSC in 70% of repetition at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $120,000 per QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) and 98% at a WTP threshold of $150,000. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes demonstrated in the ReDOS study, the dose optimization strategy of regorafenib results in favorable cost-effectiveness under a typical US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

view more

Total cost of care for patients (pts) with stage II colon cancer (CC-II): A SEER-Medicare analysis Journal of Clinical Oncology

Afsaneh Barzi, Xiayu Jiao, Joel W Hay, Sarmad Sadeghi


Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for stage II colon cancer remains a controversial topic. We used Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) linkage with Medicare claims to explore the benefits of AC and cost of care in pts with CC-II diagnosed between 2004-2010.

view more

Now Is the Time for Transparency in Value-Based Healthcare Decision Modeling. Value Health

Joel Hay


In contrast to many other countries, during the 20 years since the founding of Value in Health, the United States has moved further away from using value-based healthcare decision modeling (VHDM) for drugs and other medical care choices. US public and private health plans can be typically characterized as using "budget impact" decision making rather than VHDM, with drugs having low per-member per-month spending likely to be covered and reimbursed regardless of value. Orphan drugs and specialty drugs with relatively few patients (eg, end-stage cancer drugs) are often covered, whether cost-effective or not, because health plans want to avoid negative publicity. Although there are many explanations for the poor US uptake of VHDM, a key reason is that VHDM models and data often lack transparency and are not generally made available to researchers for independent verification and reproducibility. This violates the scientific method, and is counter to the stated position of the National Academy of Sciences and the top journals in the sciences and social sciences. Value in Health and related peer-reviewed journals could make a key contribution to improving scientific rigor and real-world healthcare decision-maker acceptability by requiring that VHDM models, source code, and data used in published articles be made freely available to interested readers.

view more

Early onset sepsis calculator-based management of newborns exposed to maternal intrapartum fever: a cost benefit analysis. Journal of Perinatology

Gong CL, Dasgupta-Tsinikas S, Zangwill KM, Bolaris M, Hay JW.


To determine potential net monetary benefit of an early onset sepsis calculator-based approach for management of neonates exposed to maternal intrapartum fever, compared to existing guidelines.

view more