OBJECTIVES: A large number of centralized reimbursement agencies are now in existence to guide decision making regarding the adoption of new health technologies. Requirements regarding the quality of life or utility data that are suitable for submissions varies between countries and so a review was undertaken to summarise the position of each body.  METHODS: The guidance for manufacturers regarding economic submissions were downloaded for the following countries – Australia, Belgium, Canada, England & Wales, Germany, Scotland and Sweden.  The guidance documents were reviewed specifically with respect to the use of quality of life/ utility data in economic evaluations. RESULTS: When the guidance documents are reviewed in detail it is clear that there are quite substantial differences between countries in their requirements regarding utility data.  There are differences in terms of what are considered suitable methods for collecting utility data, whose preferences should be collected and the context in which such data should be collected.  Some require societal preferences and others request patient preferences. The presentation will summarise the main tenets of each approach and draw out the differences. CONCLUSIONS:There are substantial differences between countries in the use of quality of life data in economic evaluations.  What is unclear is how these differences have emerged?  This may reflect the views of a few prominent experts within each country, and also the context of guidance from some early adopters such as Australia or England & Wales.  The different approaches have quite substantial implications for the philosophy underpinning reimbursement and these issues should be considered broadly by national governments when developing their own processes.