A seat at the table: what the EU HTA reforms really ask of patient involvement
July 24, 2026 | EU HTA, Patient involvement, clinical trials, design
The EU HTA reforms give patients a formal role in assessing new medicines, but meaningful involvement requires more than simply offering them a seat at the table.
In January 2025, the way new medicines are assessed across Europe changed. A year and a half on, that change is real, but its full impact has yet to be felt.
Under the EU’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Regulation, there is now a shared, Europe-wide approach to assessing how well a new medicine works, instead of each country conducting its own separate clinical assessment. The aim is to streamline processes, reducing duplication and helping patients gain faster, more equitable access to innovative treatments across Europe.
That process involves a single Joint Clinical Assessment, carried out once for all member states. This currently applies to new cancer medicines and advanced therapies. Orphan medicines (rare disease medicines) will follow in 2028, with all centrally authorised medicines included by 2030. Most therapy areas haven’t felt the impact yet, which means that, for many people reading this, the change is still coming.
The structural change gets most of the attention. But the more interesting shift is who now has a seat at the table. Patients can contribute to assessments, helping to shape what is examined and bringing lived experience into discussions about value and benefit.
The question this blog series asks, though, is whether having a seat at the table is the same as being heard. It usually isn’t – and because the rollout is only part-way through, there is still time to get it right.
So, what actually changed?
Two new processes are worth knowing by name:
- The Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) is a shared review of a medicine’s clinical evidence: does it work, and how well, compared with relevant existing treatment options? It’s completed once at EU level and made available to every national body, so they’re not all repeating the same clinical analysis
- The Joint Scientific Consultation (JSC) happens earlier during the planning stage of development. It’s a chance for developers to get advice on their evidence-generation plans, including which outcomes to measure, before key clinical studies are completed
Two boundaries matter.
First, scope. For now, the JCA applies only to new cancer medicines and advanced therapies, with orphan medicines joining in 2028 and all centrally authorised medicines by 2030.
Second, remit. The JCA looks only at clinical evidence. It doesn’t set prices, and it doesn’t decide what a health system will reimburse or fund. Those economic and market access decisions remain the responsibility of individual member states. So, the EU layer informs the national conversation; it doesn’t replace it.
Where do patients fit in?
Patient involvement isn’t a nice-to-have bolted onto the edge of this. It’s written into the process. Patients and clinical experts can help shape the scope of an assessment, including the populations it covers, the comparators it considers, and the outcomes it treats as relevant. Through the JSC process, patients can influence what evidence gets collected in the first place. In many ways, that’s the point where their input can have the greatest impact.
Why a seat isn’t yet a voice
Giving patients a place in the process is a vital first step. But ensuring their contribution shapes decisions is another matter. Why? Because:
- Timelines are tight. Patient input is often requested within narrow windows, as assessments run alongside fast-paced regulatory processes
- Many of the organisations expected to contribute are small, volunteer-led charities, now being asked to engage at European level as well as within their own national systems
- The language is highly technical – scope, comparators, relative effectiveness – and not everyone invited into the process has the support needed to navigate it confidently
- A single EU assessment must satisfy many countries at once, increasing both the complexity of the discussion and the range of perspectives and evidence needs that patients are asked to consider
None of that is a reason to step back. But it is a reminder that involving patients and hearing patients are not quite the same thing. Without the right support and opportunities to contribute, there is a risk that involvement becomes something that’s done, rather than something that makes a difference. A seat filled, not a voice listened to.
So what does ‘doing it well’ look like?
The reforms have set a place for patients. The work is making sure that, by the time each therapy area’s turn comes, someone they recognise and trust is actually sitting in it.
For the many fields not yet in scope, the time to build meaningful patient involvement is now, before the assessment arrives, not after.
That gap between having a seat at the table and being heard is what the rest of this series is about. We’ll start with the outcomes themselves – what patients actually value, and how often that differs from what assessments prioritise and measure. We’ll look at timing, and why the earliest conversation matters more than the loudest. We’ll explore who’s equipped to take part, and what real support for patient organisations looks like, including how to help without putting words in anyone’s mouth. And we’ll finish where transparency should, with making the results understandable to the people they matter to most.
Because having a seat at the table is only the beginning.
Ready to talk?
Helping patients, and the organisations that represent them, play a meaningful role in how medicines are assessed is the work. If you’re preparing for the EU HTA process, whether your therapy area is already in scope or still to come, and thinking about how to involve patients in a way that genuinely shapes the conversation, let’s talk.
References
EUR-Lex. Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTA Regulation). 12 January 2025. Available here. (Accessed July 2026).
European Union. Implementation of the Regulation on health technology assessment. 2024. Available here. (Accessed July 2026).
This content was provided by Cuttsy + Cuttsy
Company Details
Latest Content from Cuttsy + Cuttsy
Where it all began – why we developed The Experience Gap
Learn how The Experience Gap was developed to help sponsors, CROs and site teams improve clinical trial participation by identifying friction points, enhancing patient experience, and driving better recruitment and…
Cuttsy+Cuttsy launches a practical roadmap to enhance clinical trial participant experience
Cuttsy+Cuttsy has launched The Experience Gap, a practical roadmap designed to help clinical trial teams improve participant engagement, support and retention across the full study journey.
Cuttsy+Cuttsy welcomes three new experts to the team
Cuttsy+Cuttsy is happy to be welcoming three new people to the team this month.
The gap between hype and reality, what patients really say about weight loss drugs
Explore real patient conversations about weight loss drugs, uncovering challenges, support strategies, and the critical need for clear, reliable healthcare communication.
Why patient-centricity depends on site-centricity in clinical trials
Explore why patient-centricity in clinical trials relies on site-centricity, emphasising the need to design trials that empower site teams to better support patients.
From cloudy to clear: visualising complex data privacy information
Discover how clear communication principles can transform complex clinical research topics, as we conclude our Health Literacy series with a practical example on participant data transparency.
UK clinical trial regs are changing — here’s what’s happening
Discover the transformative updates to UK clinical trial regulations, effective from April 2026, and learn how they aim to enhance transparency, participant safety, and trial efficiency.
The invisible influence on trial retention: why caregivers must be part of the plan
Caregivers are vital to clinical trial retention, yet often overlooked—this article highlights their challenges, impact, and how to better support them.
Where it all began: why we wrote ‘The Site Factor’
Discover the story behind ‘The Site Factor’ and how understanding site teams’ experiences can transform clinical trials for participants and researchers alike.
From text to context: Helping patients see side effects clearly
Discover how thoughtful design, clear language, and structured visuals can transform overwhelming side effect information into accessible, actionable insights for patients in our latest Health Literacy series.