Fallacy 11: The Health Technology Developers fact check is only about correcting factual errors. Really?

Fallacy #11 ❓
The Health Technology Developers fact check is only about correcting factual errors. Really?

The factual accuracy check is formally intended to identify errors in the JCA report, such as incorrect data or effect estimates that were not accurately transferred from the Health Technology Developer’s dossier. But there is a broader strategic opportunity. ✅

The entire fact check is published as part of the JCA report. This means that the fact check becomes part of the public JCA record. It allows external stakeholders to understand not only the final assessment, but also where the manufacturer and the Coordination Group had different views and the rationale behind these different interpretations.

🎓 For manufacturers, this creates an opportunity to use the fact check more strategically:

🔹 Correct factual errors, but also make sure the rationale behind the manufacturer’s position is clearly documented.
🔹 Reinforce the key evidence narrative where the interpretation differs between the manufacturer and the assessors.
🔹 Clarify important uncertainties and methodological issues that may otherwise be interpreted differently by external stakeholders.
🔹 Create a consistent starting point for subsequent national HTA discussions, where the JCA report will provide an important part of the evidence base.

📌 Key takeaway:

💡 The fact check may be the last opportunity before publication to ensure that the manufacturer’s perspective and interpretation of the evidence are clearly documented in the public JCA record.

💡 It should therefore be considered as part of the overall JCA communication and evidence strategy, not as an isolated quality-control exercise.

💡 The strategic question is not only “What is factually incorrect?”, but also “What does the manufacturer want stakeholders to understand about the evidence, the uncertainties and the interpretation of the results?”