Brief · Use case · Market Access

HTA Body Comparison.

LiveComparison

Compare NICE, the G-BA and the HAS on comparator choice, evidence accepted, patient-reported outcomes and the link to price.

ReaderMarket access lead preparing a multi-country dossier

ItemsNICE, G-BA, HAS

Criteria4

ExpertGlobal Market Access Director

Not askedA recommended item

LengthStandard

HTA Body Comparison is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Comparison template.

For market access leads preparing a multi-country dossier. You get the bodies and criteria stated first, one sourced table, where the bodies differ and where definitions do not match. Cells are cited to each body's methods documents or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

How do NICE in England, the G-BA in Germany and the HAS in France assess a new medicine on comparator choice, evidence accepted, the role of patient-reported outcomes and the link between assessment and price?

What is compared

The comparison reads each body’s own methods, so the cells are the bodies’ statements and the caveats record where their definitions do not match.

Body	How it assesses	Where its cells come from
NICE, England	The committee decides whether the comparators are appropriate and relevant, with the scope setting the baseline. Where a technology offers similar benefits at similar or lower cost than a recommended comparator, a cost-comparison route applies.^{3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36).}	The NICE manual for health technology evaluations (PMG36).
G-BA, Germany	The committee sets the appropriate comparator and assesses added benefit on the company’s dossier. Its assessment, hearing and resolution are followed by a negotiation of the price.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.,4Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). General Methods, Version 7.0, 19 September 2023.}	The G-BA’s English page and IQWiG’s General Methods, version 7.0.
HAS, France	The Transparency Committee gives one score on whether reimbursement is justified and one on therapeutic improvement against the relevant comparator. The second contributes to price. Its updated doctrine admits good-quality indirect comparisons if the company justifies them upstream.^{2Haute Autorité de Santé. Doctrine de la Commission de la transparence: principes d’évaluation. Updated February 2023.}	HAS’s doctrine of the Transparency Committee.

What the comparison does

Who chooses the comparator. In Germany the committee sets it, in England the committee judges the one in the scope, and in France the improvement rating is made against the relevant one. The comparison shows how this changes who has to argue for the comparator and when.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.,2Haute Autorité de Santé. Doctrine de la Commission de la transparence: principes d’évaluation. Updated February 2023.,3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36).}

What counts as evidence. The comparison reads each body’s methods for the evidence it accepts, including indirect comparisons, and cites the EU guideline for joint assessments where a product falls under them.^{2Haute Autorité de Santé. Doctrine de la Commission de la transparence: principes d’évaluation. Updated February 2023.,4Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). General Methods, Version 7.0, 19 September 2023.,5HTA Coordination Group. Methodological Guideline for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis: Direct and Indirect Comparisons. Adopted 8 March 2024.}

The link to price. The German assessment leads into a negotiation, the French improvement rating contributes to price, and the English route depends on whether it is a cost-comparison or a full evaluation. The comparison sets these side by side and notes that the link is of a different kind in each country.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.,2Haute Autorité de Santé. Doctrine de la Commission de la transparence: principes d’évaluation. Updated February 2023.,3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36).}

Where definitions do not match. Terms such as added benefit, improvement and comparator are not interchangeable across bodies. The caveats list each mismatch.

Recommended length

Standard

Three bodies on four criteria fit a single table with where the difference matters. Standard carries that in about 1,200 words.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the comparison checks

The comparison states the assumptions that make the cells comparable and says where they fail. Examples for this subject:

The methods documents cited are the current versions for the product type.
The product follows the standard route and not an exceptional one in each country.
Patient-reported outcomes are treated in the bodies’ methods as the sources describe.

Standards, guidance and sources

Each body’s own methods

NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36).^{3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36).}
G-BA benefit assessment of medicinal products, and IQWiG General Methods, version 7.0.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.,4Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). General Methods, Version 7.0, 19 September 2023.}
HAS doctrine of the Transparency Committee.^{2Haute Autorité de Santé. Doctrine de la Commission de la transparence: principes d’évaluation. Updated February 2023.}

EU level

HTA Coordination Group guideline on direct and indirect comparisons, adopted 8 March 2024.^{5HTA Coordination Group. Methodological Guideline for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis: Direct and Indirect Comparisons. Adopted 8 March 2024.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any cell without a source, any term that differs between bodies, any methods document that has been revised since, and any statement about patient-reported outcomes that is not in the bodies’ own documents.

What arrives

What is compared, and on what criteria
The comparison
Where the difference matters
Where they do not differ
Caveats on comparability

What it will not do

It does not recommend an item. A comparison shows how the items differ and where they do not; if you need a recommendation, run a Decision Memo on the same items.

It does not predict how any body will assess a product.

It does not recommend an item. A comparison shows differences; a Decision Memo recommends.

It does not handle more than five items. Beyond five, the table stops being readable and a Landscape or a Scan is the better template.

It does not invent a cell. A cell without a source is a gap, and the caveats say how many there are.

References

[1] Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page. Read in full on 9 October 2026.
[2] Haute Autorité de Santé. Doctrine de la Commission de la transparence: principes d’évaluation. Updated February 2023. The link is the 2021 edition of the doctrine; the February 2023 update was described in HAS’s announcement and search excerpts and was not read in full.
[3] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36). The manual was updated on 14 July 2025 and again in 2026 as listed; paragraph numbers may have moved, so check the current version.
[4] Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). General Methods, Version 7.0, 19 September 2023. Version and date confirmed in search results; the text was not read.
[5] HTA Coordination Group. Methodological Guideline for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis: Direct and Indirect Comparisons. Adopted 8 March 2024. Adoption date as given in the Coordination Group’s meeting report and Commission pages.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Brief service

A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.

To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.