Panel · Use case · Market Access

Evidence Gap Prioritisation.

LivePrioritisation Panel

Of these 14 open evidence gaps in our dossier, which should we close first to support payer submissions?

Items14 open evidence gaps

SeatsEvidence, HEOR, access, real-world evidence

ReaderEvidence and access leads

Not askedA study protocol

DepthStandard, four seats

Evidence Gap Prioritisation is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Prioritisation Panel template.

For market access leads. You get each seat's ranking, the aggregated list with a cut line, where the seats disagree and how stable the line is. 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

Of these 14 open evidence gaps in our dossier, which should we close first to support payer submissions?

Who ranks

Ranking evidence gaps is the use case value-of-information analysis was built for. A panel cannot run it, so it ranks by proxies: how much a payer needs the evidence, how many decisions depend on it, and how long it takes to close.

Seat	What it ranks from	Why it is at the table
Global Value & Evidence Lead	Which gaps most weaken the certainty of the value claim.^{2Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2020;23(3).}	Evidence grading.
HEOR Evidence Lead	Which gaps payers will probe first and how the dossier format frames them.^{1Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions, Version 4.1. December 2019.}	The AMCP Format.
Global Market Access Director	Which gaps would block coverage in the markets that matter.	Payer decisions.
Global Real-World Evidence Lead	Which gaps real-world data could close, and how soon.	Data sources and methods.

What the run does

Proxies, labeled. The ranking uses proxies for the value of closing a gap, because a value-of-information analysis needs a decision model. The report says which proxy each criterion stands for.^{2Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2020;23(3).}

Each seat ranks all 14, alone. The items are shuffled for each seat, to limit order effects in language-model ranking.

The cut line is tested. The report shows how the top group changes if the weight on time to close or on payer need changes.^{1Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions, Version 4.1. December 2019.}

Recommended length

Standard

Four angles weigh the list differently. Standard depth gives each a seat, with disagreement, value versus effort and sensitivity, in about four pages.

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

Assumptions the run makes

The run states the assumptions behind its criteria and its cut line, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this list:

The 14 gaps are distinct and not duplicates.
Closing a gap changes a payer’s view of the dossier.
Time to close is known for each gap.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions, version 4.1.^{1Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions, Version 4.1. December 2019.}
ISPOR value of information good practices, Report 2.^{2Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2020;23(3).}

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

What gets flagged

Any pair of gaps that overlap, any criterion with no scale, and any item on which seats split by more than half the list.

What arrives

The question, criteria and items
The cut line and the top group
How each seat ranked
The aggregated ranking
Where the seats disagree
Value versus effort
Sensitivity of the cut line
Limits and what would change the ranking

What it will not do

The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. The criteria are fixed before ranking, and the cut line is a recommendation that the decider can move.

It does not run a value-of-information analysis.

It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. Seats that share a base model are not independent confirmations of each other.

It does not compute a value-of-information analysis. That needs a decision model. It ranks by proxies and says so.

It does not set the weights for you. If none are supplied, the criteria are weighted equally and the report says so.

References

[1] Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions, Version 4.1. December 2019. Scope and status as given in AMCP’s release; not read in full.
[2] Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2020;23(3). Known from search results; not read in full.

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.