ISSUE:: HTA bodies have increasingly focused on patients as key stakeholders and partakers in the HTA review process. However, there are no agreed-upon or standard methods to obtain patients’ perspectives. As a result, the provided evidence can remain anecdotal, not meaningful or difficult to interpret. The panel will debate the quality and value of patient testimonials as evidence and input compared to other sources of information included in HTA submissions and during the review process. The panel reflects the diversity of perspectives on the topic. Ken Bond, adopting an HTA’s perspective, will describe the work being done by CDR and pCODR in Canada, stakeholder perceptions, and the impact of current methods on HTA decisions. Paola Kruger, adopting a patient/ advocacy group perspective, will contend that a structured approach to patient engagement can reinforce binding commitments from all stakeholders. Laure Delbecque, adopting a researcher’s perspective, will describe scientific methods to reinforce the patient’s voice and create more parity with other evidence submitted to, and/or reviewed by, HTAs. This will be followed by a panel discussion and Q&A from the audience. OVERVIEW:: There is growing consensus that patient engagement is an essential part of the drug discovery process to ensure that patient views and needs are taken into account from initial drug development to HTA submission and review. However, the patient engagement in HTAs, particularly during the submission and review process, varies between countries and is minimally regulated. Moreover, few methods have been established to obtain/provide patient evidence in HTA submissions and/or review. As a result, the format and content of patient-centric evidence during the HTA review process is ill-defined and has yet to be considered equivalent with other evidence that is traditionally presented to HTA decision-makers. Rigorous methods are proposed to address these concerns.