Panel · Use case · Market Access
Launch Market Sequence.
LivePrioritisation PanelRank these 12 candidate countries for launch sequence, given our access and pricing criteria.
Launch Market Sequence is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Prioritisation Panel template.
For access and policy 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
Rank these 12 candidate countries for launch sequence, given our access and pricing criteria.
Who ranks
Sequence matters because early prices are referenced by later markets, and because assessment routes differ. Germany assesses added benefit, and the EU joint assessment creates a common clinical report for some products.
| Seat | What it ranks from | Why it is at the table |
|---|---|---|
| Global Market Access Director | Time to access, price level and referencing risk for each country.1 | National assessment routes such as the G-BA’s. |
| VP Global Regulatory Strategy | Time to registration and the effect of the EU joint assessment.2 | The HTA Regulation and national regulators. |
| Global Brand Lead | Market size and the readiness of the commercial organization. | Market data. |
| Global Value & Evidence Lead | How the evidence package fits each country’s method. | Assessment methods. |
What the run does
Criteria first. The access and pricing criteria and the scale are fixed before any country is ranked, and the report states the weights used.1
Referencing links the countries. Ranking is not independent across countries, because a price in one is referenced by another. The report notes pairs of countries where this matters.
Sensitivity. The cut line is retested with price weighted more and with speed to access weighted more.2
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 12 countries are the real candidates.
- Published assessment routes reflect how the product will be treated.
- Price referencing rules between countries are stable.
Standards, guidance and sources
Frame
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any country whose route was not checked, any criterion that overlaps another, and any country on which seats split widely.
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 forecast sales or recommend a price.
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] 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.