Brief · Use case · Market Access
HTA Decision Scan.
LiveScanTake stock of published HTA decisions for a drug class across four European markets, with the boundary, the sources searched and the borderline cases named.
HTA Decision Scan is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Scan template.
For market access and HEOR leads preparing a payer view. You get the boundary and method first, each decision with its market, category and maturity, how the decisions divide and what was not covered. Decisions are cited to the HTA body 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
Which health technology assessment decisions have been published in the last two years for a named drug class across Germany, France, England and Spain?
What is scanned
Each country publishes a different kind of document at a different step. The scan lists each decision with its document type, so a French opinion is not read as an English recommendation.
| Source | What it holds | What the scan does with it |
|---|---|---|
| Germany: G-BA resolutions | The Federal Joint Committee’s resolutions on added benefit, with the patient groups and the treatment costs. Assessment results are published first, and the resolution follows after the hearing.1 | Lists the resolution and, where relevant, the earlier published assessment as a separate row. |
| France: Transparency Committee opinions | The Committee’s opinions, with its scores on whether reimbursement is justified and on therapeutic improvement against the relevant comparator.2 | Lists each opinion with both scores and its date. |
| England: NICE guidance | NICE recommendations from its evaluations, produced under the manual for health technology evaluations.3 | Lists each recommendation and the evaluation route. |
| Spain: therapeutic positioning reports | The reports issued by the Spanish medicines agency for medicines with a positive opinion from the EU committee, which start after the company notifies its intent to sell in Spain.4 | Lists each report with its reference number and date. |
What the scan does
Different documents, listed as what they are. A German resolution, a French opinion, an English recommendation and a Spanish positioning report answer different questions at different points. The scan gives each its own category so they are not read as the same thing.1,2,3,4
Timing differs, too. The G-BA’s steps run to published timelines, from the dossier at first marketing to a resolution after the hearing. The Spanish reports start only when a company asks for a national code. The scan dates every item and says which date it uses.1,4
A drug class has edges. The scan names the class and the indications it includes before it searches, and lists borderline products separately.
How it was run. The Comprehensive scan reports each source, the date and the terms, and how many decisions it found against how many it kept.
Recommended length
Comprehensive
Four countries are searched over two years, so the method has to be auditable. Comprehensive adds the account of how the scan was run and what stands out.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the scan checks
The scan states the assumptions its boundary and its sources rest on, and the closing section says what they leave out. Examples for this subject:
- The bodies publish every decision in the class within the window.
- The class definition used in the scan matches the one the reader means.
- A decision is dated by its publication date, and the scan states that choice.
Standards, guidance and sources
Germany and England
France and Spain
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any decision whose document type differs from the others, any class edge case, and any country whose decisions the scan could not search in full.
What arrives
- Scope and boundary
- How the scan was run
- What is out there
- How the field divides
- What stands out
- What this does not cover
What it will not do
It does not rank or score the items it finds, and it does not recommend one. A scan lists what exists; when you need a view on it, run a Comparison or a Decision Memo on the items you choose.
It does not compare the decisions or say why they differ. A Comparison does that.
It does not rank or score the items. A scan says what exists; it does not say which item is preferable.
It is a snapshot of one date. It does not monitor the field after that date.
It lists what it could find in the sources it names. Items in sources it could not open are listed as not covered.
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. Transparency Committee (Commission de la transparence). Known from the search listing; the page was not read. The scores are as described in HAS’s doctrine.
- [3] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36). Updated in 2025 and 2026 as listed; check the current version.
- [4] Ministerio de Sanidad. Informes de Posicionamiento Terapéutico (IPT); AEMPS notices of IPTs started after each CHMP meeting. Known from the search listing and AEMPS notices; the reports themselves were not read.
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.