Brief · Use case · Public Affairs
European Access Comparison.
LiveComparisonCompare three or four European markets on one access question, cell by cell, with where the difference matters and where the numbers do not line up.
European Access Comparison is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Comparison template.
For market access and public affairs leads building a position paper. You get the items and criteria stated first, one sourced table, the two or three criteria that separate the markets and the caveats on comparability. Cells are cited to HTA or reimbursement sources 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 three or four European markets compare on one access question for a specialty product class, such as comparator choice, evidence bar or managed-entry instrument, for a pan-European position paper?
What is compared
The comparison names the markets and the access question before it fills a cell. It uses each body’s own methods documents, so the cells are the bodies’ words and not a paraphrase.
| Item | What it is | Where its cells come from |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | The Federal Joint Committee assesses added benefit over a comparator it sets, on a dossier submitted no later than first marketing. Assessment, hearing and resolution follow in stages, and the price is negotiated afterward.1,4 | The G-BA’s English page, and IQWiG’s General Methods for how the Institute assesses a dossier. |
| France | The Transparency Committee gives each medicine two scores. The first decides whether reimbursement is justified and at what rate. The second, a rating of therapeutic improvement against the relevant comparator, contributes to price.2 | HAS’s doctrine of the Transparency Committee. |
| England | The NICE committee decides whether the comparators are appropriate and relevant. The scope sets the baseline, and evidence must be relevant to the comparators in it.3 | The NICE manual for health technology evaluations. |
| A fourth market, if you name one | The comparison adds a fourth market only if you name it, and uses the same criteria. | That market’s own methods documents. |
What the comparison does
The criteria come first. The access question, such as how the comparator is chosen, what evidence is accepted or what managed-entry instrument is available, is stated before any cell is filled, so every market is asked the same thing.
Where the markets differ in kind. The German process sets the comparator for the company, the French process rates improvement against the relevant comparator, and the English process leaves the committee to judge whether the comparators in the scope are appropriate. The comparison shows where such differences change what a dossier has to do.1,2,3
Joint assessment at the EU level. The HTA Coordination Group adopted its guideline on direct and indirect comparisons on 8 March 2024, for assessors reviewing the comparisons developers submit for a joint clinical assessment. The comparison notes where it applies to the product class.5
Comparability is a finding. Where two markets use the same word for different things, or measure on different dates, the caveats say so and the cell carries a note marker.
Recommended length
Standard
Three or four markets on one question fit a single table. Standard adds where the difference matters and a bar chart 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 bodies’ methods documents cited are the current versions.
- The product class is assessed in each market under the process described.
- A term the bodies share means the same thing in each.
Standards, guidance and sources
Each body’s own methods
EU level
- HTA Coordination Group, methodological guideline on direct and indirect comparisons, adopted 8 March 2024.5
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any cell with no source, any term that means different things in different markets, any methods document that has since been revised, and how many cells are gaps.
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 rate 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.