Let's continue taking a closer look at the insights from each country presented in the Access Briefing Q2 – this week: Sweden 🇸🇪, Norway 🇳🇴, and Denmark 🇩🇰 compiled by Zealth.

Scandinavian HTA decisions reveals both common patterns and country-specific differences.

Here’s what stood out in Q2 👇🇩🇰

 

Dänemark 🇩🇰

Highlights:

🏛️ 17 treatments were recommended or directly placed  by the Danish Medicines Council (DMC).

❌ Cost concerns and uncertain effect led to non-recommendation of several oncology and dermatology therapies.

🤝 Clinical equivalence led to cost-based recommendations in multiple first-line endometrial cancer evaluations.

🧬 One high-cost cancer therapy was recommended due to lack of alternatives.

The stats:

⭐ 1 Direct placement

✅ 16 Recommended

❌ 3 Not-recommended 

 

Schweden 🇸🇪

Highlights:

🏛️ 8 HTA outcomes were published by Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) in Q2 2025.

❌ 5 treatments were not recommended due to high uncertainty and lack of pricing agreement.

💰️ All positive decisions were linked to successful price negotiations between companies and regions.

🧬 Even for high-severity and rare diseases, TLV rejected therapies when cost-effectiveness and evidence quality were lacking.

The stats:

✅ 3 Recommended

❌ 5 Not-recommended

 

Norwegen 🇳🇴

Highlights:

🏛️ 49 HTA decisions were published Norwegian Medical Products Agency (NOMA)

❌ 19 treatments were not recommended — mainly due to price misalignment with clinical effect.

💰️ Several recommendations followed price renegotiations ensuring alignment with clinical effect.

🔁 Broad use of “not recommended – price too high” signals strong pressure on suppliers to re-engage in pricing talks.

The stats:

✅ 30 Recommended

❌ 19 Not-recommended

 

📝 Register here to receive the latest and upcoming issues of the complete Access Briefing with HTA insights from 14 countries, compiled by 9 partners of our network 👉 https://forms.office.com/e/Jt8bPmVkdJ