Panel · Use case · Public Affairs
European Access Divergence.
LiveDivergence ReviewMap where five European markets will genuinely disagree on an access position, why they split and what would settle it, without forcing consensus.
European Access Divergence is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Divergence Review template.
For market access leads writing a pan-European position. You get each seat's answer to the same question, where the positions diverge, whether each split is evidence, assumption or value, the cruxes and what would settle it. Claims are cited 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
Where will five European markets genuinely disagree on this access or public-affairs position: comparator, evidence bar, managed entry or timing?
Who is at the table
Countries run different assessment systems. Germany’s G-BA assesses added benefit against an appropriate comparator, and from 2025 the EU joint clinical assessment adds a common clinical report that national bodies then use in their own way.
| Seat | What it is asked | What it works from |
|---|---|---|
| Global Market Access Director | Which comparator, evidence bar and entry terms each of the five markets is likely to insist on.1 | National assessment methods, including the G-BA’s benefit assessment. |
| HEOR Evidence Lead | Which evidence each market will accept as showing added value, and where they differ.1,2 | Published assessment decisions. |
| VP Global Regulatory Strategy | Where the regulatory label and the assessments are likely to part ways.2 | The EU joint assessment framework. |
| Ecosystem Intelligence Orchestrator | How payers, clinicians and policy bodies in each market are positioned. | Public statements and policy documents. |
What the review does
The map is the product. A position paper that assumes European agreement fails in the room. The review shows where the five markets are likely to split and who in the panel expects it.
Typed disagreement. Disagreement about the comparator is usually about evidence; about timing it is often about assumption; about managed entry it can be about value. The review labels each and says which kind more data could settle.1
The joint assessment narrows some questions, not all. The joint clinical assessment produces a common clinical report, while pricing and reimbursement stay national. The review separates the questions the report settles from those it leaves open.2
Recommended length
Standard
Four disciplines will read this question differently. Standard depth types each divergence as evidence, assumption or value in about four pages.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the review checks
The review states the assumptions each position relies on, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this question:
- The joint assessment will cover the product.
- Past national decisions on similar products predict the next one.
- A comparator accepted in one country will be accepted in another.
Standards, guidance and sources
Frame
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any prediction about a national decision that rests on one precedent, any point where all four seats agree, and any market no seat addressed.
What arrives
- The question as put
- The shape of the disagreement
- Each position, in its own terms
- Where they diverge
- Why they diverge: evidence, assumption or value
- The cruxes
- What would settle it
What it will not do
It does not force a consensus, and it is a deliberation of AI specialists and not a vote of human experts. The decision stays with you.
It does not write the position paper or set a price.
It does not force a consensus. A report that closes every gap would be the wrong output.
It is not a vote of human experts. Every seat is an AI specialist, and the report says so.
It does not name a winner. It says what would settle the question and leaves the decision to you.
References
- [1] Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page. Read on 9 October 2026.
- [2] European Commission. Regulation on health technology assessment (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282): joint clinical assessments. Known from search results; check the current page.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Panel service
Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.
To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.