Evidara for Market Access

Walk into every payer meeting
knowing more than they do.

Reimbursement landscape. Published ICER and NICE precedents. Comparator positioning. Modelled budget impact. Evidara returns a complete payer intelligence brief in 20 minutes — exported to PDF and PPTX, fully sourced, ready for submission preparation.

Request a Demo → Explore free →

20min

Complete payer intelligence brief — from query to export-ready output

Reference thresholds — NICE (UK), ICER (US), CADTH (Canada)

PDF+PPTX

Value dossier export on every analysis — slide-ready for payer meetings

AMCP+NICE

Output structured to AMCP Format v4.0 and NICE reference case requirements

The market access bottleneck

Three weeks of preparation work
before every payer conversation.

01 — HTA Landscape

Reimbursement precedent lives in 14 separate archives

NICE, ICER, G-BA, HAS, CADTH, PBAC, and others each publish appraisals in different formats, at different cadences, with different evidence requirements. Building a reimbursement landscape means checking each one manually — and precedents get missed.

~1–2 weeks per reimbursement landscape

02 — Comparator Intelligence

Formulary positioning of comparators requires competitive research

Understanding how your main comparator was positioned in payer negotiations — what evidence they used, what concessions were made, what outcomes were tracked — is buried in published appraisals, managed entry agreement disclosures, and grey literature.

Incomplete comparator profiles

03 — Value Communication

Value dossiers take weeks to compile and update

Translating evidence into a value dossier that satisfies AMCP Format requirements, NICE reference case structure, and payer-specific evidence standards takes a dedicated team weeks per submission — and needs updating every time new data emerges.

~3–4 weeks per dossier build

How Evidara solves it

Payer intelligence that's ready
before the engagement starts.

Protocol P — Payer Intelligence Brief

Complete HTA landscape in 20 minutes

Chain P is the flagship protocol — built specifically for market access and value communication. It maps the comparator landscape from ClinicalTrials.gov and ChEMBL, searches published HTA appraisal literature, and models cost-effectiveness against published thresholds — returning a structured payer brief. Deterministic, zero LLM.

Cost-effectiveness modelled against published ICER, NICE and CADTH thresholds

Published NICE, ICER and CADTH appraisal literature, each linked to its PMID

Comparator landscape — registered trials, mechanism and development stage

Modelled 5-year budget impact and utility estimates, with their sources

Value Dossier Export

PDF and PPTX export on every analysis

Every Evidara analysis produces a fully formatted value dossier — structured to AMCP Format v4.0, with NICE reference case sections, comparative effectiveness evidence, budget impact modeling inputs, and safety data — exported to PDF and PowerPoint in one click.

AMCP Format v4.0 structured output

NICE reference case evidence mapping

Slide-ready comparative effectiveness tables

Full source provenance on every evidence claim

Protocol C — Comparative Safety

Safety evidence for indirect comparisons

Payer negotiations require comparative safety data alongside effectiveness. Chain C returns structured FAERS pharmacovigilance data, published safety literature, and label history for both your drug and key comparators — formatted for indirect treatment comparison in value dossiers.

Head-to-head and indirect safety comparison

FAERS adverse event profile vs. comparators

Label safety updates and post-marketing history

GRADE evidence level assigned per safety claim

Illustrative example

GLP-1 payer intelligence brief

Chain P assembles a payer intelligence brief for an asset — surfacing published HTA appraisal literature, positioning against named comparators, and modelling budget impact from published ranges, exportable to PDF and PPTX.

Run this analysis yourself →

"Build a complete payer intelligence brief for semaglutide in cardiovascular disease — ICER analysis, NICE precedents, formulary positioning, comparator HTA landscape"

Cost-effectiveness placed against published ICER, NICE and CADTH thresholds

Published appraisal literature matched to the comparator and population

Appraisal literature attributed to NICE, ICER or CADTH where the source identifies it

Comparator landscape from registered trials, with mechanism and development stage

Budget-impact signals summarised with the payer sensitivities they depend on

Chain P · Illustrative example — not a live analysis · PROVISIONAL, requires expert review

Walk into every payer meetingknowing more than they do.

Three weeks of preparation workbefore every payer conversation.

Payer intelligence that's readybefore the engagement starts.