One assessment philosophy, several systems
Every HTA system asks a version of the same question: does this technology offer enough benefit, with enough certainty, at an acceptable cost to the system? The way the question is asked differs. NICE and SMC weigh cost-effectiveness with explicit modifiers; NCPE combines a rapid review with full assessment where needed; the EU JCA assesses relative clinical effectiveness only and leaves value judgements to member states.
We design evidence so it travels across these systems, and adapt it to the specific expectations of each.
HTA services
- NICE, SMC and AWMSG submissions, clarification responses and committee preparation
- NCPE submissions in Ireland, rapid reviews and resubmissions
- EU JCA dossiers, PICO simulation and national follow-on
- Early HTA advice and briefing books for scientific advice
- HTA benchmarking: what drove past decisions in your therapy area
- Model adaptation and systematic reviews built for submission
- International pricing and MFN implications for launch sequencing
What assessors look for
In our experience, strong submissions rarely turn on a single number. They earn credibility when the decision problem matches the scope, when indirect comparisons rest on tested assumptions, and when extrapolation choices are justified against clinical plausibility. We review evidence packages against those questions before submission, while there is still time to address them. Our analyses of the NICE severity modifier, survival extrapolation and JCA PICO scoping explain how.
Why Evidaxia
Our founder worked inside NICE as an HTA Technical Lead and Analyst, and has since supported company submissions to NICE, SMC, AWMSG, NCPE, CDA-AMC and the EU JCA. We combine that assessor perspective with senior, hands-on delivery.
How the main HTA systems compare
| NICE (England) | SMC (Scotland) | NCPE and HIQA methods (Ireland) | EU joint clinical assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What is assessed | Clinical and cost effectiveness | Clinical and cost effectiveness | Clinical and cost effectiveness, with budget impact | Relative clinical effects (effectiveness and safety) only |
| Cost perspective | NHS and personal social services | NHSScotland and social work | Publicly funded health and social care system (the HSE) | Not applicable |
| Discount rate | 3.5% a year | 3.5% a year | 4.0% a year after the first year | Not applicable |
| Preferred HRQoL measure | EQ-5D in adults | EQ-5D in adults | Generic preference-based measures such as EQ-5D or SF-6D | Outcomes as set by the assessment scope |
Sources: NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies manual (PMG36); SMC guidance to submitting companies for completion of the New Product Assessment Form (October 2026); HIQA National Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland (March 2025); European Commission guidance on joint clinical assessments under Regulation (EU) 2021/2282. For a wider view across Europe, see our HTA requirements comparison.
When HTA expertise adds most value
HTA input is useful at every stage, and its value is greatest where decisions are still open:
- Clinical development: Comparators, end points and subgroups chosen with HTA questions in mind, supported where useful by early advice such as joint scientific consultation.
- Before scoping: Anticipating the PICOs for the JCA and the decision problem for NICE, so that evidence work starts early. See JCA PICO scoping.
- Submission: A coherent package of review, comparisons, model and narrative, prepared by one senior team.
- Assessment and committee: Well-prepared responses to clarification questions and assessment reports, and confident committee preparation.
- After the recommendation: Resubmissions, managed access and updated analyses as new data mature.
How it connects
HTA consultancy draws on the full evidence chain. Systematic reviews and indirect treatment comparisons establish relative effectiveness; health economic models and budget impact models translate it into value and affordability; and market access strategy connects the recommendation with pricing and uptake. Our analysis of one evidence plan for NICE and the JCA shows how these pieces can be designed once and used across several systems.
Because one senior team works across these services, the assumptions in the review, the comparisons, the model and the written submission stay consistent, and each piece can be updated efficiently when new data or a new comparator arrives.