Demand orientation necessitates that the talent development in health economics transcends academic silos and actively aligns with national strategic needs and frontiers of the health industry. Whether the commitment to “Good Health and Well-being” in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or national health strategies formulated to address population aging, the burden of chronic diseases, and public health emergencies, these constitute the top-level strategic context for talent development. Simultaneously, as the health industry transitions from marketing-driven to value-driven models, market demands from pharmaceutical enterprises, commercial health insurers, and digital healthcare sectors should serve as guiding indicators for talent development (16).

This principle emphasizes a shift from traditional knowledge transmission to Competency-Based Education (CBE). In an era of information explosion, knowledge updates rapidly, whereas core competencies possess enduring transfer value (17). The competency encompasses not only technical skills in applying economic models for analysis, but also the ability to make value judgments in complex contexts, advocate for policy, and engage in evidence-based decision-making grounded in big data. The contemporary pedagogical objective of health economics has evolved from the rote memorization of economic theories or medical terminology to the development of comprehensive capabilities. This empowers students to rapidly synthesize interdisciplinary knowledge, construct analytical frameworks, and formulate actionable solutions for complex public health challenges.

Systems thinking serves as the underlying logic of the framework. The public health system is an inherently Complex Adaptive System (CAS) characterized by high dynamism, openness, and interactivity (18). As a methodology for addressing problems from a holistic perspective, systems thinking focuses on the interconnections among the components of a system. Moreover, applying systems thinking to health systems has been proven beneficial. As Trochim et al. noted, introducing systems thinking into health systems holds significant practical value for constructing a panoramic view of financing, deepening interdisciplinary collaborative mechanisms, and addressing the influence of social and political factors (19, 20). Systems thinking enriches the theories, methods, and instruments available to health economics professionals in global health and social security governance. It provides new opportunities to comprehend, iteratively test, and revise the understanding regarding the essence of health issues (21), thereby facilitating the provision of more resilient and sustainable solutions for complex health governance.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of health economics, the competency-based talent development framework in health economics adopts a “T-shaped” talent development model, dividing the knowledge into two components: the “Foundational General Education Modules” and the “Specialized and Refined Direction.” The Foundational General Education Modules comprise three core modules. Module 1: Economic Principles and Behavioral Health. This module covers microeconomic concepts such as resource scarcity and incentive mechanisms, as well as macroeconomic topics including health capital and economic growth. Specifically, behavioral health economics is incorporated to explore the application of bounded rationality, time preference, and nudge theory in chronic disease prevention and healthy lifestyle interventions (22). This module emphasizes economic analysis and causal inference, fostering evidence-based thinking grounded in data. Module 2: Medical Foundations and Public Health Science. Covering epidemiology, health statistics, social medicine, and health services management, this module prioritizes the integration of the whole-life-cycle health management. And it enables students to comprehend the long-term cost–benefit logic of transitioning from disease treatment to health promotion within an aging population context. Module 3: Global Health Systems and Policy Regulation. Utilizing a comparative health systems perspective, this module examines financing models, health service systems, and governance structures across different nations in their pursuit of universal health coverage. It focuses on the social determinants of health inequalities, developing students’ global perspective.

Building upon a broad interdisciplinary foundation, students should select specific fields for vertical specialization based on their career planning. Four specialized and refined directions are defined according to industry demands and disciplinary frontiers. Direction 1: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Pharmacoeconomics. This direction develops students’ capacity to conduct economic modeling and value assessments using clinical trial data and real-world evidence. Students should engage with advanced courses such as cost-effectiveness analysis, cost–benefit analysis, and budget impact analysis to learn how to optimize the market access and pricing of innovative medical technologies under budget constraints. Direction 2: Medical Security and Strategic Purchase. This direction focuses on how payers can induce behavioral changes in healthcare providers through strategic purchasing. Students are required to undertake advanced courses in payment system design, actuarial principles, and risk adjustment mechanisms to enhance the efficiency of health fund utilization. Furthermore, the curriculum incorporates Game Theory to enhance students’ strategic negotiation competencies. Direction 3: Health Industry Innovation and Management. This direction explores how to balance the economic returns and social benefits of the health industry under market mechanisms. Students are required to further undertake advanced courses such as healthcare operations management and value chain analysis of the health industry. These courses are designed to develop their competencies in dealing with the “silver economy” and the upgrading of health consumption. Direction 4: Digital Health and Big Data Governance. This direction explores health governance and evaluation in the context of digital transformation. Students are required to study the application of medical big data analytics and machine learning in health economics, economic evaluation of digital therapeutics, data privacy, and ethical regulation (23, 24).

To ensure the effective implementation of the above “modular and refined” knowledge structure, universities can implement a micro-credential study scheme. Characterized by the compact and structured format, micro-credential facilitates the effective integration of interdisciplinary knowledge at relatively low opportunity cost (25). For instance, medical students may make up for shortcomings in the resource allocation perspective by taking an economics micro-credential, while business and management students may deepen their understanding of chronic disease burdens and the long-term sustainability of health resources through a public health micro-credential. The micro-credential study scheme must incorporate rigorous assessment standards and credit certification mechanisms equivalent to core curriculum requirements, ensuring it serves as a substantive component of the talent development framework rather than a mere supplement.

The skills dimension centers on efficiently translating interdisciplinary knowledge into practical capabilities for resolving complex health challenges. Relevant skills can be summarized into four aspects. First, the capability for data acquisition and analysis. Contemporary health economic decision-making increasingly relies on big data and evidence-based analysis (26). Students should be proficient in acquiring, cleaning, and processing health data, and effectively integrate medical insurance databases, hospital information systems, and epidemiological survey data. Given the sensitivity of health data, students must strictly adhere to ethical standards and data compliance regulations during data mining and processing. On this basis, priority is given to developing core competencies in applying economic analysis tools for policy evaluation and empirical reasoning. Second, the capability for economic modeling and resource allocation. Health economics professionals should systematically integrate economic theory, medical information, and policy regulations to construct resource allocation models tailored to practical health needs. They are required to design resource allocation schemes under budgetary constraints by comprehensively balancing multiple objectives, including clinical effectiveness, health outcomes, economic feasibility, and equity in social security (27). Third, the capability for policy design and implementation. A competent health economic professional can not only propose theoretical solutions but also implement them precisely. This feature includes policy design abilities as well as the capacity to promote policy execution in multi-departmental and multi-stakeholder settings, coordinate varied stakeholder interests, and manage dynamic changes and risks. Fourth, the capability for cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration. Health economics issues involve multiple fields, including economics, management, medicine, law, and public health. Addressing them depends on teamwork and cross-sectoral coordination. Students should develop strong communication skills, empathy, and social responsibility, enabling them to establish evidence-based dialog across disciplines and departments to promote policy implementation and health equity.

The professional attributes dimension constitutes the intrinsic foundation for talent development. Its essence lies in internalizing values, professional ethics, and social responsibility as behavioral guidelines. This directs professionals to consistently uphold a human-centric awareness and enhance societal well-being while applying their knowledge and skills. Only under the guidance of solid values, professional ethics, and social responsibility can the knowledge and skills of health economics be transformed into effective forces that promote health equity and the effectiveness of social security. The professional attributes dimension first demands the firm establishment of health equity awareness. Health economics not only pursues the efficiency of resource allocation but also strives to enhance health equity and sustainability. Consequently, the framework must deeply embed health equity concepts into curricula. Secondly, adhering to the baseline of professional ethics is crucial. Students are expected to consciously respect boundaries among medicine, humanity, and law. When confronted with situations involving patient privacy, ethical dilemmas, and the spillover effects of policies, they should consistently uphold basic principles such as the protection of patients’ rights and informed consent (28). Finally, developing professional attributes relies on a strong sense of social responsibility. Students should be encouraged to integrate their personal development goals with the broader vision of global health. They are expected to actively participate in healthcare services at the grassroots level and in remote areas, contributing to the equitable and inclusive development of healthcare systems.

In the development of health economics professionals, the traditional “input-driven” teaching method is increasingly inadequate for addressing complex and evolving public health challenges. OBE focuses on competency outputs, directly aligning students’ academic achievements with the demands of national strategies, social security, and the health industry. By constructing “competency profiles” for students, higher education institutions can restructure curricula and instructional processes. OBE emphasizes backward design, taking students’ future competencies as the guiding direction. First, the core competencies required for key positions in the field of health economics should be systematically mapped to determine the capabilities graduates must possess. Subsequently, in accordance with OBE requirements, break these competencies into quantifiable learning objectives and further cascade them into distinct course modules. Simultaneously, attention must be paid to evolving societal health demands, industrial transformations, and new policy regulations. In response to these dynamics, universities should timely adjust course content, refresh the competency list, and optimize pedagogical and assessment methods. Health economics is an applied and interdisciplinary field. OBE can effectively integrate knowledge, skills, and professional attributes. It organizes the entire talent development chain around the strategic demands of the social security system, injecting sustainable momentum into future health economists to solve real-world health problems (29, 30).

Public health policies typically involve vast population scales and significant capital volumes, characterized by pronounced externalities and irreversibility (31, 32). Traditional class instruction often fails to enable students to grasp the potentially catastrophic consequences of a flawed policy design. Therefore, the framework introduces real-world simulation-based teaching, allowing students to engage in policy experimentation and optimization in a risk-free environment. This method centers on topical issues such as health insurance payment reform, hierarchical diagnosis and treatment, innovative drug access, and structural reforms in the health industry, emphasizing the simulation of the strategic interactions among multiple stakeholders in health decision-making. This pedagogical approach brings authentic situations into the classroom. It employs role-play and structured debate to position students at the contradictory center of health issues. In these scenarios, students are grouped to simulate stakeholders, such as patients, doctors, hospital managers, medical insurance bureau officials, and pharmaceutical company representatives, unfolding work around real-world health topics. For example, whether high-priced innovative drugs should be included in medical insurance. The simulation requires students to utilize data analysis and economic models to generate evidence, and engage in argumentation and negotiation during the final simulated policy hearing. A big data-based simulation laboratory should incorporate multi-source heterogeneous data that is desensitized, such as medical insurance settlements, hospital services, population mobility, chronic disease burden, and public health statistics. Students can independently set key parameters, including reimbursement rates, payment methods, medical treatment procedures, drug prices, and insurance coverage. Subsequently, the system conducts real-time policy simulations and provides dynamic feedback on outcomes, including medical insurance fund balance, patient flow, population health indicators, and service accessibility. Students then iteratively refine policies based on feedback information. This iterative cycle of “parameter input—outcome feedback—policy adjustment” develops students’ competencies in assessing policy time lags, marginal impacts, and systemic risks.

As a practice-oriented teaching methodology, the case study method has demonstrated remarkable educational effectiveness in enhancing students’ critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and practical skills (33). However, the traditional case study method lacks coherence and systematicity, remaining confined to a single-discipline perspective and failing to meet the educational demands for interdisciplinary knowledge application. The framework proposes a progressive case study method. This approach fosters students’ composite analytical capabilities by embedding systematic, progressive, and multidisciplinary integrated cases throughout the curriculum cycle. The innovation and effectiveness of the method lie in engaging students in iterative and progressive analysis of a single case, gradually equipping them with the competency to address complex problems in public health systems. Each stage of case analysis provides dynamic feedback on prior outcomes, fostering students’ forward-thinking capabilities regarding policy implementation consequences. This method is helpful to equip students with a robust foundation for professional roles in health resource allocation, social security system design, and evaluation. Throughout this process, students analyze selected cases from multi-disciplinary perspectives, including economics, management, medicine, law, and policy regulation. The complexity of cases increases in alignment with course progression. To ensure effectiveness, cases selected must be challenging and open-ended. They should reflect the interdisciplinary characteristics of health economics and align with different curriculum stages. In addition, priority should be given to recent cases, ensuring students engage with the latest changes in the health industry and public health policy.

This model disrupts the traditional paradigm where university faculty are the sole source of professional knowledge by inviting experts from the government, industry, and research institutions to participate in course design, case development, teaching, and evaluation. Prior to course development, academic faculty and external experts should jointly identify target competencies the course aims to cultivate. Based on national strategies and critical industry challenges, real-world policy cases and cutting-edge technologies should be integrated into instruction. During instruction, both internal and external faculty should jointly undertake lecturing, case seminars, student guidance, and performance assessment. University faculty systematically present health economics theoretical frameworks and analytical tools, while industry and government experts enrich the learning experience with practical case analyses, practical operations, policy interpretations, and project-based expertise (34, 35). This model achieves a tripartite integration of “disciplinary knowledge—industry scenarios—policy hotspots.” Students can transform abstract academic models into concrete tools and solutions for navigating market and policy transformations.

This initiative aims to transform practical training from short-term internships into institutionalized, long-term practice integrated throughout the entire educational process. This model goes beyond simple nominal collaboration bases, emphasizing joint resource investment by universities and partner organizations, such as local medical insurance bureaus, leading medical groups, and health technology firms. Students participate as formal team members in authentic projects. The establishment of joint bases signifies a shift from a mere talent supply relationship to a strategic partnership, where collaborators jointly invest in, manage, and cultivate health economics professionals (36, 37). Each student is assigned an academic mentor from the university and a practical mentor from the external partner, forming a dual-mentor system with shared responsibility. Academic mentors ensure scholarly rigor and guide students in identifying researchable health issues from specific tasks. Practice mentors assign challenging real-world projects and guide students in mastering industry standards and workflows.

To deeply integrate innovation capabilities with research output, universities should collaborate with government agencies, the health industry, and research institutions to undertake research projects. These projects should be oriented toward addressing real-world challenges such as population aging, the burden of chronic diseases, and health equity. This approach not only hones students’ research skills but also directly serves practical needs for enhancing population health and social security. As research assistants, students are immersed in project design, execution, and reporting, realizing a mode of “research-driven learning.” To address the critical difficulty of data accessibility in health economics, stakeholders should facilitate the establishment of secure, compliant, and shared databases. For instance, universities and their partners could jointly develop a “Health Economics Data Collaboration Platform” to integrate multi-source, heterogeneous information such as regional medical insurance settlements data, public health monitoring data, chronic disease management data, and healthcare service databases. Data providers should utilize de-identification and encryption technologies to desensitize datasets, strictly preventing the re-identification of individuals.

To accurately measure educational outcomes of the competency-based talent development framework in health economics, universities should establish a multi-dimensional teaching quality assessment mechanism. This mechanism aims to make implicit competencies explicit, ensuring that assessment results authentically reflect students’ ability to address real-world health economic problems. The mechanism emphasizes students’ growth trajectories rather than solely focusing on learning outcomes. (1) Introduce a learning portfolio to document the performance of students across classroom learning, innovative pedagogical methods, and collaborative development mechanism. (2) Drawing competency radar charts to visualize students’ performance across core competency dimensions, including critical thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ethical decision-making. By comparing these profiles in different educational phases, the trajectory of students’ competency development is monitored, serving as a pivotal metric for evaluating pedagogical effectiveness. (3) Construct a dual-track assessment model combining academic and practical components. The academic module emphasizes theoretical mastery and methodological rigor, while the practical module evaluates students’ performance in real-world projects. (4) To examine the actual contribution of the framework to social security systems, it is necessary to add long-term impact evaluation indicators, such as policy contributions and cost-saving initiatives implemented by graduates in their future careers.

Developing multidisciplinary talent requires first breaking the path dependence of prioritizing theory over practice among university faculty, building a dual-qualified teaching team possessing both academic and practical capabilities. On one hand, “Scholar-in-Residence” positions should be established by inviting experts and scholars from health authorities, medical insurance bureaus, pharmaceutical enterprises, and high-level think tanks to regularly conduct teaching and research on campus, bringing the latest policy and industry developments into the classroom. On the other hand, formulate professional growth plans for faculty to ensure dynamic alignment between their professional development and the talent development framework. Firstly, strengthen interdisciplinary backgrounds of internal faculty by encouraging teachers from relevant departments, such as medical schools and business schools, to form interdisciplinary teaching teams. This fosters the collision and integration of ideas from educators in different disciplines. Secondly, support young faculty to enter international health governance organizations or prestigious overseas universities for training and exchange. This facilitates the acquisition of cutting-edge academic concepts and case resources, expanding global governance and innovation capabilities of the faculty (38). Thirdly, establish a multi-dimensional faculty evaluation mechanism centered on teaching competency, teaching outcomes, and project innovation (39). Provide special funding and talent incentives to top-rated teachers, motivating continuous innovation and high-quality teaching and research.

Facing the new situation of rapid iteration of medical technology, dynamic adjustment of health policies, and continuous upgrading of the health industry, graduates must possess the ability of lifelong learning. The talent development framework should build a future-oriented CPD support mechanism, extending school education across the full career trajectory (40). Universities should establish a “Health Economics Knowledge Update Cloud Platform” based on alumni networks. This platform could provide high-level online courses, electronic libraries, the latest academic trends, and case databases to graduates for life. Furthermore, it should focus on developing micro-credential courses covering emerging cross-disciplinary fields such as AI analysis for medical policies and digital health, meeting the updated requirements for graduates’ vocational skills and guaranteeing their competitiveness in the labor market. The CPD support mechanism encourages reciprocal feedback (41). Universities should regularly conduct surveys on alumni career trajectories and ability development. Authentic feedback from the frontline serves as a crucial basis for OBE, helping universities identify emerging shifts in industry talent demands. Simultaneously, inviting alumni, teachers, students, and industry experts on the same platform to form an interactive community. Encourage alumni to share frontier issues, typical cases, and policy challenges encountered in their work. This is a good way to enrich teaching case bases and drive the deep integration of talent development with industrial needs.