- An HTA reviewer isn't short on documents. What she's short on is time to connect a subgroup result on page 40 with the cost-effectiveness claim on page 140.
- There's a habit in market access of proving thoroughness by adding pages. A wall of tables doesn't help a reviewer judge faster, it just proves the work was done.
- We turn dense HEOR evidence into a value story that shows the comparison directly. Zero new claims are created, every visual maps back to the approved source data.
HTA reviewers judge evidence fastest when they can see it, not just read it. Here's what we found, and what it means for how you build your next story.
01The reviewer’s actual problem
An HTA reviewer isn’t short on documents. What she’s short on is time to connect the dots between a subgroup result on page 40 and the cost-effectiveness claim on page 140.
of the time, physicians read only the abstract of a publication, not the full paper.
MLR review covers every version, however many journeys one approved core holds.
languages one approved core is produced in, without restarting the scientific review each time.
Every figure here is independently sourced.
02Dense is not the same as rigorous
There's a habit in market access of proving thoroughness by adding pages. A wall of tables doesn’t help a reviewer form a judgment faster, it just proves the work was done.
“A wall of tables doesn’t help a reviewer form a judgment faster, it just proves the work was done.”
03What changes when the data is visual
We turn dense HEOR evidence into a value story that shows the comparison directly. Zero new claims are created in this process, every visual maps back to the approved source data.
04One review, every audience in the room
Building five different explainer decks for five different reviewers means five review cycles. One MLR review can instead cover every journey through the same approved core.