OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify the main value drivers behind the innovation category designations (1, 2A, 2B) assigned during the Taiwanese reimbursement process. METHODS: All products assessed for reimbursement from January 2012 to March 2014 by the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) were considered in this analysis. The details of the assessments have been extracted from the NHIA meeting minutes and Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) reports. RESULTS: Category 1 designations are given to drugs that show “substantial clinical improvement”, Category 2A designations to drugs that exhibit “moderate improvement”, and Category 2B designations to drugs that provide similar clinical value to comparators. Since 2012, 94 of 113 products received positive decisions from the NHIA. 19 received Category 2A (26%), 51 received Category 2B (71%), while 2 received Category 1 (3%). Most Category 2B drugs were considered as alternative therapeutic options with similar efficacy (94%) to an existing product; others were considered to provide better clinical value but a larger budget impact or higher price (6%). Most Category 2A drugs were considered to provide additional efficacy, safety, or convenience over the comparator (53%). Of the 2 Category 1 products, plerixafor was rewarded for its curative potential in hematologic malignancies, as well as its potential reduction of hospitalisation costs; azacitidine was rewarded for being a first-in-class therapy for Myelodysplastic Syndrome. 22 of 94 products did not receive any category, as they were indication expansions. 17 of 113 assessed products received negative decisions due to their significant budget impact (59%) or lack of clinical benefit (41%). 2 out of 113 decisions are pending. CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical and economic considerations heavily drive the assessment outcomes in Taiwan. In order to achieve a positive assessment outcome in Taiwan, a product needs to provide a combination of favourable clinical and economic data.