Revised Methods Guide for Economic Evaluation Studies of Health Technologies in Portugal

Soares, Marta and Perelman, Julian and Mateus, Ceu and Duarte, Ana and Faria, Rita and Ferreira, Lara N. and Saramago, Pedro and Veiga Benesch, Paula and Furtado, Claudia and do Céu Teixeira, Maria and Caldeira, Sónia and Sculpher, Mark (2026) Revised Methods Guide for Economic Evaluation Studies of Health Technologies in Portugal. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 42: e11. pp. 1-20. ISSN 0266-4623

Text (Manuscript_Guidelines_Portugal_2025-11)
Manuscript_Guidelines_Portugal_2025-11.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (204kB)

Abstract

Introduction: Economic evaluation supports public funding decisions about the use of health technologies within the Portuguese National Health System (NHS). The methods guide for economic evaluation in Portugal serves both companies preparing economic evaluation submissions and the independent commission appraising the evidence submitted. Methods: This article presents the revised methods guide for economic evaluation in Portugal. The revisions reflect advances in economic evaluation, updates to regulatory policies, and responses to the evolving economic context. The paper highlights the most significant changes to the guidance, comparing the new Portuguese guidelines to those from the United Kingdom and Canada. The discussion is framed around key comments received during public consultation. Results: The updated guidelines recommend cost-effectiveness analyses based on quality-adjusted life years and advocate for long-term modelling, a 4 percent discount rate, and a focus on NHS costs. New features include guidance on the identification and management of uncertainty within a dynamic appraisal process with regular contract negotiations (which can trigger reappraisals). The guide also covers how cost-effectiveness models, typically centrally developed, should be adapted to the Portuguese context. It highlights the key role of structured expert elicitation to address uncertainties in evidence, including those related to model adaptation. Conclusions: The revision was developed through stakeholder consultations and aligns with international best practices, offering more explicit and transparent methods to support health resource allocation decisions.