INSIDE CEESP TECHNICAL EXCHANGES: METHODOLOGICAL SIGNALS FROM RECENT FRENCH ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS
Author(s)
Nicolas Virely, PharmD1, Olfa Doghri, MSc1, Rahma Sellami, PharmD1, Romain Supiot, MSc1, Marine Sivignon, PharmD2.
1Inizio Ignite Putnam, Paris, France, 2Inizio Ignite Putnam, Lyon, France.
1Inizio Ignite Putnam, Paris, France, 2Inizio Ignite Putnam, Lyon, France.
OBJECTIVES: The methodological questions raised during the Economic and Public Health Assessment Committee (CEESP) technical exchanges (TE) are published in the economic opinions, but their systematic analysis has received little attention. This study aimed to characterize the main methodological topics and request types raised in CEESP technical exchanges between 2023 and 2025, and to describe how these evolved over time.
METHODS: TE questions were extracted from CEESP EOs and classified using a predefined framework covering methodological topics, request type and analysis concerned. Descriptive analyses were conducted overall and separately for cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) questions.
RESULTS: The dataset included 2,412 TE questions from 57 EOs, corresponding to an average of 42 question per EO. Most questions related to CE analysis, with 1,946 CE questions (81%) versus 466 BI questions (19%). The most frequent topics were scope and population (17.3%), modelling methods (16.5%), clinical evidence (16,4%), BI (12.5%), and costs and resource use (9.5%). CE questions mainly challenged robustness and transposability of the economic demonstration, whereas BI questions focused on target population, uptake, scenarios, costs and consistency with CE analyses. Compared with 2023-2024, the 2025 TEs had more questions per EO (44.1 vs 41.4). Data requests, justification and alternative scenarios accounted for 53.6% of 2025 questions versus 49.0% in 2023-2024, while clarification requests deceased from 28.3% to 24.7%. Overall, recent TE questions placed greater emphasis on evidence supporting modelling choices, traceability of assumptions, and consistency between reports and economic models.
CONCLUSIONS: Although TE questions are rarely explored, their systematic analysis provides a a granular view of how the methodological expectations are applied during French economic assessments. This approach identifies where submissions are most frequently challenged and can inform practical recommendations for future dossiers, particularly regarding assumption justification, uncertainty exploration, model transparency and consistency between CE and BI analyses.
METHODS: TE questions were extracted from CEESP EOs and classified using a predefined framework covering methodological topics, request type and analysis concerned. Descriptive analyses were conducted overall and separately for cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) questions.
RESULTS: The dataset included 2,412 TE questions from 57 EOs, corresponding to an average of 42 question per EO. Most questions related to CE analysis, with 1,946 CE questions (81%) versus 466 BI questions (19%). The most frequent topics were scope and population (17.3%), modelling methods (16.5%), clinical evidence (16,4%), BI (12.5%), and costs and resource use (9.5%). CE questions mainly challenged robustness and transposability of the economic demonstration, whereas BI questions focused on target population, uptake, scenarios, costs and consistency with CE analyses. Compared with 2023-2024, the 2025 TEs had more questions per EO (44.1 vs 41.4). Data requests, justification and alternative scenarios accounted for 53.6% of 2025 questions versus 49.0% in 2023-2024, while clarification requests deceased from 28.3% to 24.7%. Overall, recent TE questions placed greater emphasis on evidence supporting modelling choices, traceability of assumptions, and consistency between reports and economic models.
CONCLUSIONS: Although TE questions are rarely explored, their systematic analysis provides a a granular view of how the methodological expectations are applied during French economic assessments. This approach identifies where submissions are most frequently challenged and can inform practical recommendations for future dossiers, particularly regarding assumption justification, uncertainty exploration, model transparency and consistency between CE and BI analyses.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
HTA65
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas