Does compensating patients bias their opinions?

I get asked this question regularly, often by well-meaning health innovators and solution providers.

In design thinking, the value of engaging end-users in ideation and development is unquestionable. But some worry compensating patients could bias their opinions.

Aside from the ethical implications of not paying someone for contributions to commercial endeavors, the question should be not whether to pay patients, but how.

Here are 5 things to consider when determining fair remuneration:
1. Market-based compensation, also called fair market value. Benchmark what you’d pay a consultant.
2. Tiered compensation based on type and duration of effort. Account for time and skills required.
3. Compensation not tied to desired outcomes. Make it clear participation won’t influence results.
4. Transparency - let participants know terms upfront so they can make an informed decision.
5. Cover out of pocket expenses like travel and childcare.

The goal is to thank patients for their time and expertise - not induce specific outcomes.

Still not convinced?

Think of the selection bias from only attracting those with time and means to participate unpaid. Is that your target audience?

Paying patients demonstrates you value their lived experience and contributions. It leads to more authentic, thoughtful input.

What’s your perspective - does compensation really bias patients? Or does it enable more equal partnerships? 👇