Panel · Use case · Market Access

Geographic Entry Board.

LiveGo / No-Go Board

Should we enter this country now, later or not at all, given pricing, reimbursement and regulatory conditions?

DecisionEnter now, later or not at all

LensesAccess, regulatory, ecosystem, compliance

ReaderRegional leadership

Not askedA market forecast

DepthStandard, four seats

Geographic Entry Board is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Go / No-Go Board template.

For access and policy leads. You get a recommendation, the score matrix and vote tally, the conditions of approval and the dissent record. 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

Should we enter this country now, later or not at all, given pricing, reimbursement and regulatory conditions?

Who scores

Entry depends on a national route to registration, a route to reimbursement and a local compliance regime. The board scores each separately.

Seat	What it scores	What it works from
Global Market Access Director	The reimbursement route, the price and the time to access.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}	National assessment methods, for example the G-BA’s.
Regulatory Strategist	The registration route and the time it takes.	The national regulator’s published procedures.
Ecosystem Intelligence Orchestrator	Partners, competitors and the policy environment.	Public records.
Global Commercial Compliance Officer	The local rules on promotion, transparency and interactions.^{2European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice.}	Local codes of practice.

What the board does

Reimbursement is the long pole. In many countries access depends on a separate assessment after registration. The board scores time to access and not only time to approval.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}

Local codes apply. Codes of practice such as the EFPIA Code set what may be said and given. The compliance seat scores readiness against the local code.^{2European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice.}

Later is an option. The recommendation can be to enter later, with the trigger events stated, for example a change in the assessment route.

Recommended length

Standard

Four lenses bear on this decision. Standard depth gives each a seat, with the criteria, the matrix and the conditions in about four pages.

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

Assumptions the board scores against

The board states the assumptions behind its criteria and says what each gap limits. Examples for this decision:

The country’s assessment route will treat the product as the document describes.
Pricing referencing will not erode prices elsewhere.
A local partner is available on acceptable terms.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

G-BA, benefit assessment of medicinal products.^{1Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}
EFPIA Code on the promotion of prescription-only medicines.^{2European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice.}

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

What gets flagged

Any price assumption not supplied by the team, any timeline taken from a single precedent, and any country rule not confirmed locally.

What arrives

The proposal and the decision sought
Board recommendation
Criteria and scoring basis
Seat assessments
Score matrix and vote tally
Conditions of approval
Pre-mortem and rebuttal outcome
Dissent and what would reverse the call

What it will not do

The decision belongs to the named decider and the seats are AI specialists. The thresholds are set by the proposer or the decider, and the board does not invent them.

The examples are European, and the board adapts them to the country named.

It does not decide. The decision belongs to the named human decider, and the seats are AI specialists.

It does not set thresholds or weights for you. The proposer or the decider sets them.

It does not average away a failed must-meet criterion.

References

[1] Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page. Read on 9 October 2026.
[2] European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice. The Code was confirmed in an earlier review of its PDF; this page link was not opened.

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.