Data requirements from reimbursement authorities globally vary greatly due to variation in importance of HTA and levels of acceptable complexity in submitted economic evidence. Often market differences have been addressed by global pharmaceutical companies by developing value arguments that address the most developed reimbursement systems, which then have to be adapted locally, often resulting in the duplication of effort among local affiliates. Placing customer requirements and informal preferences as the starting point of the development of value arguments can increase efficiency and more specifically meet local HTA needs. Methodologies that will support development of locally adaptable value arguments – both value dossiers as well as health economic messages - requires first of all the understanding of local payer needs. Countries requiring submission of economic data can be classified on the basis of commonly required assessment methods – budget impact analysis, cost effectiveness analysis and cost minimisation analysis, as well as the complexity accepted in both submitted clinical and economic evidence. This complexity is in terms of level of complexity of data requirements for Health Economic analysis, technical modelling approach, CE outcome, local/international data preference, preference for comparator, preferred time horizon amongst others. This can be used to divide these countries into buckets with similar requirements. Globally developed value arguments can be developed and adapted to these buckets of countries and their needs. Basing value arguments that are developed globally as mentioned, and then sent to local affiliates to adapt to the specific needs of their HTA system, on the preferences of customers is expected to be crucial to ensure local success for reimbursement.