Panel · Use case · Public Affairs
Pan-European Position Round Table.
LiveRound TableConvene a Round Table across public affairs, regulatory, HEOR and medical affairs on a pan-European position: each view, where they connect, what none covered.
Pan-European Position Round Table is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Round Table template.
For public affairs and market access leads facing a cross-disciplinary call. You get each discipline's view in its own terms, where the disciplines connect and disagree, what none of them covered and what the deliberation does not settle. 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 the client advance a pan-European position on this access file before the next Joint Clinical Assessment window?
Who is at the table
The joint clinical assessment under the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation applies in stages. It started on 12 January 2025 for oncology medicines and advanced therapies, and extends to orphan medicines in 2028 and all centrally authorized medicines in 2030.
| Seat | What it is asked | What it works from |
|---|---|---|
| Global Market Access Director | What a joint assessment changes for national access, and whether to shape a single position.1 | The Regulation and the coordination group’s published methods. |
| Regulatory Strategist | How the regulatory file and the assessment dossier line up in timing and content.1,2 | EMA procedures and the Regulation’s timelines. |
| HEOR Evidence Lead | Whether the evidence package answers the questions member states put in the scope.1 | The PICO scoping approach of the assessment. |
| Global Medical Affairs Director | What clinicians and societies will need to see, and where the clinical story is weakest. | Guidelines and the published clinical evidence. |
What the round table does
Timing is the first constraint. The panel states which window applies to the product and what has to be ready before it. Dates come from the Regulation and are marked where the product’s own timeline is unknown.1
Assessment is clinical; pricing stays national. The Regulation covers the joint clinical assessment. Pricing and reimbursement remain with member states, and the panel keeps that boundary in view.1
Residual uncertainty stays visible. The report does not collapse to a single opinion. It shows where policy and payer questions are unresolved and which seat raised them.
Recommended length
Standard
Four disciplines bear on this question. Standard depth gives each a seat, with the table of connections and the dissent, in about four pages.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the round table checks
The round table states the assumptions each seat relies on, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this question:
- The product falls within the scope of the first joint assessments.
- The coordination group’s scoping will resemble earlier requests.
- National bodies will use the joint report as a base and not as a ceiling.
Standards, guidance and sources
Frame
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any date that depends on the product’s own timeline, any claim about how member states will use the joint report, and any dissent about whether to engage early.
What arrives
- The question, and who was asked
- Where the panel lands
- What each discipline says
- Where the disciplines connect
- Where they disagree, and why it matters
- What none of them covered
- What changes, and what this does not cover
What it will not do
It is a deliberation of AI specialists and not a vote of human experts. It reports where they land and where they split, and the decision stays with you.
It does not set a pricing or reimbursement strategy for any country.
It is not a vote of human experts. Every seat is an AI specialist, and the report says so.
It does not add a seat that did not speak or invent a quote or a number.
It does not decide. It sets out the views, the dissent and the gaps for you to decide.
References
- [1] European Commission. Regulation on health technology assessment (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282): joint clinical assessments. Phasing as the Commission describes it, known from search results and the Regulation; check the current page.
- [2] European Medicines Agency. Human regulatory overview: marketing authorisation. 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.