OBJECTIVES: Main function of a health system is to prevent diseases, restore health status and reduce health impairment. Health systems are mainly organized on efficacy based decisions, but sometimes their social functions modulate this principle. In case of small patient groups, end-stage status and unmet health needs, usually decision are made on the basis of equity, instead of efficacy. These demands create special development conditions; eventuate in high prices on the supply side, therefore cost-effectiveness cannot be guaranteed, not even with substantial health benefits. Numerous expensive drug therapies are available in Hungary with reimbursement, but due to fiscal restrictions, new therapies are not able to access reimbursement. These tendencies create a paradox situation, since equity is implemented occasionally in absence of objective criteria. Due to the huge differences among these therapies, a standardized decision-making principle does not exist, but a general framework can be developed. In our study, methods and techniques are introduced, which can help to assess these therapies and organize a transparent system. METHODS: For the general assessment of therapies, many methods are available. In our research, we reviewed these tools and investigated their combinability in the special situation of “high-value” therapies. RESULTS: A wide range of evidences (clinical trials, meta-analysis, health-economy analysis, HTAs) provide a robust background to compare high-value therapies between different therapeutic areas. Outputs (LYG, OS, QALY, costs etc.) show a significant variation following different clarification process. A standardized process needed to earn comparable outputs from evidences. CONCLUSIONS: As we found, these tools could help decision making on prioritizing therapies, allocate resources with a higher control and reduce the risk of reimbursement.