Fig. 2

Analysing recent HTA appraisals shows HAS’s methodology to lead to a higher rate of rejection HRQoL data than IQWiG. A Number submissions to HAS across disease areas which included HRQoL data, and when this was accepted. B Rationale quoted by HAS for rejecting HRQoL data as a percent of submissions including HRQoL data across disease areas. C Number of all submissions to IQWiG across disease areas which included HRQoL data, and when this was accepted. HAS and IQWiG appraisals between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 were analysed across six therapeutic areas (rare disease, respiratory disease, oncology, cardiovascular diseases, *metabolism/endocrinology and paediatrics). Appraisals were collected from PrismAccess. Reasons for rejection are not mutually exclusive; some appraisals mentioned more than one reason for rejecting HRQoL evidence. **These reasons for rejection commonly cause the data to be regarded as “exploratory”, which is the most frequent cause of HRQoL data rejection mentioned in HAS appraisals. IQWiG does not undertake an assessment for rare diseases; this is done by the German federal joint committee (G-BA). NICE’s methodology is different, as it usually undertakes the clinical and economic assessment jointly, hence NICE appraisals are not reviewed here