Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore how Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) evidence could be developed and used across market access and medical affairs, and how JCA could become a de facto clinical comparator benchmark beyond its intended HTA role.
METHODS: A mixed qualitative approach was applied. First, a targeted review of publications and position statements from scientific societies and relevant stakeholder groups was conducted to assess current perceptions of JCA and levels of clinical engagement. Second, cross‑functional mapping was undertaken to compare typical JCA evidence outputs (e.g., SLR scope, ITC results, caveats) against decision needs in market access and information needs in medical affairs and HCP engagement. Third, qualitative expert elicitation was performed through structured discussions and polling with professionals from market access and medical affairs involved in early JCA‑related work. Discussions focused on internal reuse and interpretation of JCA evidence rather than on specific products.
RESULTS: Across sources, JCA evidence was consistently described as increasingly influential beyond reimbursement, particularly as a trusted comparative reference point for medical affairs activities. Areas of alignment between access‑focused and clinically focused interpretation included the value placed on transparent comparative evidence and population‑level conclusions. However, tensions were identified around the handling of methodological caveats, communication of uncertainties, and the boundaries of JCA’s “intended use.” In several cases, JCA outputs were described as implicitly shaping clinical narratives, despite not being designed for that purpose.
CONCLUSIONS: JCA could be evolving from a purely access‑driven deliverable into a cross‑functional knowledge asset with growing relevance for medical and clinical decision‑making, but key tension points need to be identified and addressed. This shift raises important evidence generation, interpretation, and communication considerations. Stronger internal alignment is needed to ensure consistent and appropriate use of JCA evidence across functions, preserving its policy intent while maximizing its scientific value.