Skip to content
Med-Econ
  • Why Us?
  • About us
  • Our Services
  • References
  • Insights
  • Contact
  • en_GB
    • hu_HU
Menu
  • Why Us?
  • About us
  • Our Services
  • References
  • Insights
  • Contact
  • en_GB
    • hu_HU

Innovative solution for today and tomorrow

Med-Econ Ltd. is a leading health economics research and consulting firm with a strong focus on innovation. 

We specialize in planning, implementing, and managing healthcare investments and professional programs

Our mission is to drive advancements in health insurance systems and healthcare delivery through cutting-edge research and strategic development.

Services

Our Partners

Offering specialised and unique services tailored to your needs

Why choose Med-Econ Ltd.?
With over 20 years of experience in health economics, our dynamic and highly specialized team offers client-focused support from project inception to completion. We combine our expertise in economics, public health, and statistics to help you make informed decisions at the right time, ensuring successful outcomes for your healthcare initiatives.

References

Our Services

Strategic project management

Comprehensive project management, financial planning, business planning, and strategic consulting for healthcare organizations, including grant consulting and strategy development.

Details

Health economics analysis

Our health economics analyses provide deep insights, enabling our approach to optimize strategies and contribute to sustainable and efficient growth.

Details

Health technology assessment

Evaluation of health technologies, with a focus on the analysis of new medical devices and procedures. Our assessments place special emphasis on the key aspects of Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

Details

Health insurance market analysis

Analysis and development of services in the mandatory and private health insurance markets. Preparation and implementation of healthcare R&D grant proposals.

Details

Meet the people behind the success

About us

Dr. Borbála Cseh

Managing Director
Healthcare Manager

Dr. Dózsa Csaba - Egészségügyi közgazdász, projektmenedzsment, egészség-gazdaságtan, elemző

Dr. Csaba Dózsa

Senior Health Economics Analyst

Our news

Med-EconAugust 20, 2026 What is Health Technology Assessment – and why it belongs before the investment decision, not after. HTA is the set of methods that evaluate a health technology across the dimensions that actually matter: effectiveness, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and its wider economic and social consequences. A full assessment weighs burden of disease, clinical trial evidence, health gain, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and public-health need – turning scattered evidence into one defensible decision. At Med-Econ, HTA is a core discipline, with a particular focus on new medical devices and procedures. Recent evaluations span technologies from insulin-pump systems and advanced wound care to extracorporeal blood purification. The goal is always the same: turning clinical evidence into an economic decision that holds up. Med-Econ · Independent health economics, HTA, and healthcare strategy Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaAugust 18, 2026 A pharmacist told me, between two sessions, that she now talks to oncology patients more than some of their doctors do. That stayed with me. I opened the Friday oncology day at the XXXV. National Congress of Pharmacists in October, the first speaker at 9am. A clinical-pharmacy room, and there I was, the health economist, talking about something that sounds like the soft part of care: patient-pathway organisation and patient education. It is not the soft part. It is the part that decides whether an expensive therapy actually works. What struck me most was not on any slide. It was the moment I realised how much one oncology patient now depends on people sharing what they know. The diagnostics have changed. The oral therapies have changed. The reimbursement rules around them have changed. No single person holds all of that anymore. That is the sentence I keep coming back to. This knowledge no longer fits in any one person's head. It only fits in a team. The pharmacist sees the patient between hospital visits. The oncologist sets the therapy. Someone has to organise the pathway so the patient does not fall through the gaps between them. By the end of the day, colleagues who had never worked together were already planning to. The way I see it, the economics follow the teamwork, not the other way round. If you organise care around a team, the money tends to be better spent. If you organise it around a single role, you pay for the gaps. Curious how this looks in your own institution? Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Med-EconAugust 5, 2026 The record behind almost two decades of independent analysis: 70+ references · 80+ won grants and tenders · HUF 25 billion in awarded project funding · 230+ publications · 60+ partners across public and private healthcare. Since 2006, Med-Econ has delivered health-economic analyses, feasibility studies, and HTA evaluations for county hospitals, universities, professional bodies, and life-science companies – from EU-funded consortium projects to single-technology reimbursement studies. Credibility built one analysis at a time. Source: Med-Econ project record, 2006–2024 · med-econ.eu/referenciak Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaAugust 4, 2026 0.25 percent. That is roughly how much of Hungary's public health budget we spend on running the system that allocates it. The international norm sits at 3 to 4 percent. I raised this talking at Pogi Podcast with Dr István Kósa back in march, in the "Korkép a magyar egészségügyről" series, I keep coming back to it. Here is why the gap matters. We move around 3,000 billion HUF of public money through NEAK every year. That figure gets a lot of attention. What gets almost none is the cost of managing it well. Analysis, monitoring, clinical audit, the people who check whether the money actually buys health. When you spend a quarter of a percent on that function, there is simply nobody to optimise the other 99.75 percent. I have seen this from inside. Eleven years at NEAK, then on the regulator side, and twenty years since as an outside analyst. The pattern is the same everywhere I look. We treat the management layer as overhead to cut, not as the thing that protects the spend. The result is a black box. Inside that 3,000 billion sit redundant tests, outdated procedures that newer ones replaced years ago, and process variation between regions that nobody measures. A routine X-ray still gets billed in large volumes long after CT and MRI made it unnecessary. We have no regular mechanism to retire what no longer earns its place. The way I see it, raising system management toward 2.5 to 3 percent is not bureaucracy. It is the precondition for every other reform working. You cannot manage what you do not measure. And right now we barely fund the measuring. Curious how this looks against your own institution's data? Happy to share the underlying analysis. Full podcast in hungarian: https://lnkd.in/dwAMzdbt Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Med-EconJuly 21, 2026 Innovative solutions for today and tomorrow. That principle has guided Med-Econ since 2006. Its mission: to drive advancements in health insurance systems and healthcare delivery through cutting-edge research and strategic development. For 20+ years, Med-Econ has helped Hungarian healthcare organisations, investors, and life-science companies make rational, evidence-based decisions – working where financing, regulation, and advisory expertise meet. Not from the clinical or manufacturing side, but from the economic-analytical one: reading the numbers, and drawing conclusions from them. Almost two decades. 60+ partners. One mission – advancing healthcare through evidence. Med-Econ Kft. · Budapest · med-econ.eu Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaJuly 14, 2026 35,000 people are waiting more than 60 days for surgery. But the real figure is 25–30% higher. That's the challenge I broke down recently on ATV Magyarország. Because the hardest question isn't how to operate more, it's who we even keep a waiting list for. Cutting waiting lists isn't a financing problem. It's systems design. Ten questions any serious healthcare programme has to answer: 1️⃣ What should we even keep a waiting list for? Is the defined scope right? The bottleneck is often not the surgery but the diagnostics leading up to it. It's a set-theory problem: the sets overlap. 2️⃣ Do the people on the list truly belong there? False positives, less-invasive alternatives, and supply-induced demand: where there's capacity and a doctor, that's where the patients appear. 3️⃣ Who belongs on the list but isn't? False negatives, unmet need: patients never reach a diagnosis. No GP, no work-up, living far from the centre. This is a question of equity, access and equal opportunity. 4️⃣ Capacity mapping + bottleneck analysis. (a) HR: surgeons, anaesthesiology, scrub nurses, porters, post-op recovery & nursing. (b) Capacity: operating theatres, ICU & recovery beds, equipment, patient-pathway design. 5️⃣ Are these really the interventions we need? The list must be validated against clinical protocols, guidelines, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and health technology assessment (HTA, cost-effectiveness), and patient safety. 6️⃣ If not, develop the alternative therapeutic pathways. Rehabilitation, home care, pharmacological therapy, interventional radiology, and the care pathway leading to them. 7️⃣ Separate the time horizons. Immediate (3–4 months), short term (through end-2027), medium term. Each with its own task list. 8️⃣ Immediate action: review financing. Do the tariffs of the Hungarian DRGs (HBCs) and procedure codes, cost weights and base rates, cover actual costs? Many procedures are underfunded today; you can't make a hospital "buy" a loss. 9️⃣ Medium-term development plan. Mainly EU-funded. (a) Expand existing centres: new tables, equipment, trained HR. (b) Build new centres: costlier, but it levels access across the country. 🔟 Patient-pathway and referral system. A territorial institutional structure focused on the worst, longest-waiting areas. 💡 The point? The goal isn't hitting a political promise, it's stable, equitable patient care. Funding and equipment can be created fast. The health workforce cannot. That's the real bottleneck. Full interview in hungarian available here: https://lnkd.in/dBFmCyW8 Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaJune 30, 2026 I was part of a Válasz Extra conversation with Dr Zsolt Hegedűs, hosted by Anita Élő, in collaboration with the Hungarian Medical Chamber - back in 2025. A year on, Zsolt is now among the first turning those ideas into policy, so the demographics are worth looking at again. Every talk I give, I open with the age pyramid. The Ratkó cohorts, roughly 120 to 130 thousand births a year in the early 1950s, are reaching 70 to 75 now. The surgical peak is still 5 to 8 years away. We could see this coming 15 and 20 years ago. The question is what we did to prepare. Here is the uncomfortable part. Over four years, +1,000 billion HUF went into the fund. In the same window, every performance indicator moved the wrong way. Corrected for inflation and GDP share, the real surplus was only a few hundred billion. And it arrived as a fixed sum, no performance expectation, no quality requirement. That tells you the demographic wave was met with money, not with a plan. When I was on the payer side, the whole job was holding back a profession that wanted to operate more, because public money was short. Now the money is less of the constraint. The staff is. You cannot conjure a surgical team overnight. There is a quality piece too. Years ago we built an indicator system at the insurer. Caesarean rates, 30-day heart attack mortality, the things that hold up a mirror. It was dismantled in 2006. Look at Sweden. They simply published heart attack mortality per hospital. Within six months the worst quartile had pulled up to the national average. Transparency alone did that. The way I see it, the wave is not a surprise. The lack of preparation is the choice. If you have seen the same dynamic in your own data, I would be interested to compare notes. See the full 1 hour podcast in hungarian. https://lnkd.in/d-VwSMCj Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗
Med-EconMay 11, 2025 News Reimagining Pharmacy Services for 2030 – Gyógyszertár 2030 ConferenceWe were proud to see Dr. Csaba Dózsa, one of Med-Econ’s lead health economics experts, join a distinguished panel of professionals to discuss the future of pharmacy-led healthcare in Hungary. Budapest Marriott Hotel, May 7, 2025.
Med-EconMarch 11, 2025 News Spotlight on Healthcare Policy & Pharmacy – XXX. National Conference of Private PharmacistsWe were proud to represent Med-Econ Ltd. at one of the key annual events for pharmacy professionals and healthcare leaders in Hungary. March 7–9, 2025, Balatonfüred.
Med-EconAugust 20, 2026 What is Health Technology Assessment – and why it belongs before the investment decision, not after. HTA is the set of methods that evaluate a health technology across the dimensions that actually matter: effectiveness, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and its wider economic and social consequences. A full assessment weighs burden of disease, clinical trial evidence, health gain, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and public-health need – turning scattered evidence into one defensible decision. At Med-Econ, HTA is a core discipline, with a particular focus on new medical devices and procedures. Recent evaluations span technologies from insulin-pump systems and advanced wound care to extracorporeal blood purification. The goal is always the same: turning clinical evidence into an economic decision that holds up. Med-Econ · Independent health economics, HTA, and healthcare strategy Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaAugust 18, 2026 A pharmacist told me, between two sessions, that she now talks to oncology patients more than some of their doctors do. That stayed with me. I opened the Friday oncology day at the XXXV. National Congress of Pharmacists in October, the first speaker at 9am. A clinical-pharmacy room, and there I was, the health economist, talking about something that sounds like the soft part of care: patient-pathway organisation and patient education. It is not the soft part. It is the part that decides whether an expensive therapy actually works. What struck me most was not on any slide. It was the moment I realised how much one oncology patient now depends on people sharing what they know. The diagnostics have changed. The oral therapies have changed. The reimbursement rules around them have changed. No single person holds all of that anymore. That is the sentence I keep coming back to. This knowledge no longer fits in any one person's head. It only fits in a team. The pharmacist sees the patient between hospital visits. The oncologist sets the therapy. Someone has to organise the pathway so the patient does not fall through the gaps between them. By the end of the day, colleagues who had never worked together were already planning to. The way I see it, the economics follow the teamwork, not the other way round. If you organise care around a team, the money tends to be better spent. If you organise it around a single role, you pay for the gaps. Curious how this looks in your own institution? Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Med-EconAugust 5, 2026 The record behind almost two decades of independent analysis: 70+ references · 80+ won grants and tenders · HUF 25 billion in awarded project funding · 230+ publications · 60+ partners across public and private healthcare. Since 2006, Med-Econ has delivered health-economic analyses, feasibility studies, and HTA evaluations for county hospitals, universities, professional bodies, and life-science companies – from EU-funded consortium projects to single-technology reimbursement studies. Credibility built one analysis at a time. Source: Med-Econ project record, 2006–2024 · med-econ.eu/referenciak Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaAugust 4, 2026 0.25 percent. That is roughly how much of Hungary's public health budget we spend on running the system that allocates it. The international norm sits at 3 to 4 percent. I raised this talking at Pogi Podcast with Dr István Kósa back in march, in the "Korkép a magyar egészségügyről" series, I keep coming back to it. Here is why the gap matters. We move around 3,000 billion HUF of public money through NEAK every year. That figure gets a lot of attention. What gets almost none is the cost of managing it well. Analysis, monitoring, clinical audit, the people who check whether the money actually buys health. When you spend a quarter of a percent on that function, there is simply nobody to optimise the other 99.75 percent. I have seen this from inside. Eleven years at NEAK, then on the regulator side, and twenty years since as an outside analyst. The pattern is the same everywhere I look. We treat the management layer as overhead to cut, not as the thing that protects the spend. The result is a black box. Inside that 3,000 billion sit redundant tests, outdated procedures that newer ones replaced years ago, and process variation between regions that nobody measures. A routine X-ray still gets billed in large volumes long after CT and MRI made it unnecessary. We have no regular mechanism to retire what no longer earns its place. The way I see it, raising system management toward 2.5 to 3 percent is not bureaucracy. It is the precondition for every other reform working. You cannot manage what you do not measure. And right now we barely fund the measuring. Curious how this looks against your own institution's data? Happy to share the underlying analysis. Full podcast in hungarian: https://lnkd.in/dwAMzdbt Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Med-EconJuly 21, 2026 Innovative solutions for today and tomorrow. That principle has guided Med-Econ since 2006. Its mission: to drive advancements in health insurance systems and healthcare delivery through cutting-edge research and strategic development. For 20+ years, Med-Econ has helped Hungarian healthcare organisations, investors, and life-science companies make rational, evidence-based decisions – working where financing, regulation, and advisory expertise meet. Not from the clinical or manufacturing side, but from the economic-analytical one: reading the numbers, and drawing conclusions from them. Almost two decades. 60+ partners. One mission – advancing healthcare through evidence. Med-Econ Kft. · Budapest · med-econ.eu Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaJuly 14, 2026 35,000 people are waiting more than 60 days for surgery. But the real figure is 25–30% higher. That's the challenge I broke down recently on ATV Magyarország. Because the hardest question isn't how to operate more, it's who we even keep a waiting list for. Cutting waiting lists isn't a financing problem. It's systems design. Ten questions any serious healthcare programme has to answer: 1️⃣ What should we even keep a waiting list for? Is the defined scope right? The bottleneck is often not the surgery but the diagnostics leading up to it. It's a set-theory problem: the sets overlap. 2️⃣ Do the people on the list truly belong there? False positives, less-invasive alternatives, and supply-induced demand: where there's capacity and a doctor, that's where the patients appear. 3️⃣ Who belongs on the list but isn't? False negatives, unmet need: patients never reach a diagnosis. No GP, no work-up, living far from the centre. This is a question of equity, access and equal opportunity. 4️⃣ Capacity mapping + bottleneck analysis. (a) HR: surgeons, anaesthesiology, scrub nurses, porters, post-op recovery & nursing. (b) Capacity: operating theatres, ICU & recovery beds, equipment, patient-pathway design. 5️⃣ Are these really the interventions we need? The list must be validated against clinical protocols, guidelines, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and health technology assessment (HTA, cost-effectiveness), and patient safety. 6️⃣ If not, develop the alternative therapeutic pathways. Rehabilitation, home care, pharmacological therapy, interventional radiology, and the care pathway leading to them. 7️⃣ Separate the time horizons. Immediate (3–4 months), short term (through end-2027), medium term. Each with its own task list. 8️⃣ Immediate action: review financing. Do the tariffs of the Hungarian DRGs (HBCs) and procedure codes, cost weights and base rates, cover actual costs? Many procedures are underfunded today; you can't make a hospital "buy" a loss. 9️⃣ Medium-term development plan. Mainly EU-funded. (a) Expand existing centres: new tables, equipment, trained HR. (b) Build new centres: costlier, but it levels access across the country. 🔟 Patient-pathway and referral system. A territorial institutional structure focused on the worst, longest-waiting areas. 💡 The point? The goal isn't hitting a political promise, it's stable, equitable patient care. Funding and equipment can be created fast. The health workforce cannot. That's the real bottleneck. Full interview in hungarian available here: https://lnkd.in/dBFmCyW8 Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗ Dr. habil. Csaba DózsaJune 30, 2026 I was part of a Válasz Extra conversation with Dr Zsolt Hegedűs, hosted by Anita Élő, in collaboration with the Hungarian Medical Chamber - back in 2025. A year on, Zsolt is now among the first turning those ideas into policy, so the demographics are worth looking at again. Every talk I give, I open with the age pyramid. The Ratkó cohorts, roughly 120 to 130 thousand births a year in the early 1950s, are reaching 70 to 75 now. The surgical peak is still 5 to 8 years away. We could see this coming 15 and 20 years ago. The question is what we did to prepare. Here is the uncomfortable part. Over four years, +1,000 billion HUF went into the fund. In the same window, every performance indicator moved the wrong way. Corrected for inflation and GDP share, the real surplus was only a few hundred billion. And it arrived as a fixed sum, no performance expectation, no quality requirement. That tells you the demographic wave was met with money, not with a plan. When I was on the payer side, the whole job was holding back a profession that wanted to operate more, because public money was short. Now the money is less of the constraint. The staff is. You cannot conjure a surgical team overnight. There is a quality piece too. Years ago we built an indicator system at the insurer. Caesarean rates, 30-day heart attack mortality, the things that hold up a mirror. It was dismantled in 2006. Look at Sweden. They simply published heart attack mortality per hospital. Within six months the worst quartile had pulled up to the national average. Transparency alone did that. The way I see it, the wave is not a surprise. The lack of preparation is the choice. If you have seen the same dynamic in your own data, I would be interested to compare notes. See the full 1 hour podcast in hungarian. https://lnkd.in/d-VwSMCj Read more Open on LinkedIn ↗
Med-EconMay 11, 2025 News Reimagining Pharmacy Services for 2030 – Gyógyszertár 2030 ConferenceWe were proud to see Dr. Csaba Dózsa, one of Med-Econ’s lead health economics experts, join a distinguished panel of professionals to discuss the future of pharmacy-led healthcare in Hungary. Budapest Marriott Hotel, May 7, 2025.
Med-EconMarch 11, 2025 News Spotlight on Healthcare Policy & Pharmacy – XXX. National Conference of Private PharmacistsWe were proud to represent Med-Econ Ltd. at one of the key annual events for pharmacy professionals and healthcare leaders in Hungary. March 7–9, 2025, Balatonfüred.

Ready to boost
your business today?

Contact us for further information and let us and know how we could be of service 

Contact

Frequently asked questions

What exactly does Med-Econ do?
Med-Econ is an independent health economics research and consulting firm. Our main areas: health economics analysis, health technology assessment (HTA), project management and business planning, grant development and management, and health insurance market analysis.
Who do you work with?
Hospitals and their maintainers, medical device and pharmaceutical companies, insurers, municipalities, practice communities and professional organizations. Our references include Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Generali and Union Insurance.
What is HTA (health technology assessment)?
HTA is the systematic evaluation of health technologies (such as new medical devices and procedures) in terms of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact. It is the professional basis of social insurance reimbursement submissions.
How does a collaboration start?
With a free consultation: we get to know the task, then provide a precise professional proposal and timeline. This is followed by data-driven analysis, interim consultations and a clear, decision-ready handover.
Can you help with grants?
Yes, from monitoring opportunities through preparation to the professional and project management tasks of implementation. We have contributed to 80+ grant projects with more than HUF 25 billion awarded.
How long does an analysis take?
It depends on the scope: every proposal includes a concrete, realistic timeline, and we keep the deadlines we commit to.
Med-Econ

Health economics research and consulting

  • info@med-econ.eu
  • +36 20 935 3386
  • 1083 Budapest, Kiss József u. 16

Services

  • Our Services
  • Health technology assessment (HTA)
  • Health insurance market analysis
  • Strategic project management
  • Primary Care Practice Communities

Who we help

  • Hospitals and maintainers
  • Pharma and medical device companies
  • Municipalities and primary care
  • All audiences

Knowledge base

  • What is HTA?
  • Health economics analysis
  • What is a practice community?
  • All articles

Company

  • About us
  • References
  • Publications
  • Insights
  • Contact
© 2026 Med-Econ Kft. Designed & developed by Brizz
Privacy PolicySitemap

Ready to get started?