TABLE 3.

Characteristics of the analyzed countries in terms of similarities and differences of HB-HTA systems.

Country/ Category	National HTA agency	HB-HTA model				Source of financing		Stakeholders
	Typical HTA Agency at the national level	Independent group a	Stand-alone b	Integrated-essential c	Integrated-specialised d	Internally (from hospital funds)	Externally (scientific grants and regional funds)	National HTA Agency or equivalent	Payer/insurer or Ministry of Health	Regional governments (hospital district representatives)
Switzerland—CHUV	—			✓		✓		✓
Switzerland—HUG		✓				✓
Switzerland—EHNV		✓				✓		✓
Spain—HCB	—		✓			✓				✓
Spain—VR&VM				✓		✓				✓
Spain—HStJD		✓				✓				✓
France	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Italy	✓		✓			✓	✓		✓
Denmark	—				✓	✓	✓		✓
Finland	✓				✓		✓	✓		✓
Sweden	✓				✓		✓			✓
The Netherlands	✓				✓	✓	✓		✓
Austria	✓	✓					✓	✓	✓	✓

^aInternal hospital units operating as an “independent group” that informally supports managerial decisions on health technologies.

^bWith highly specialized and formalized units within hospitals, operating without strong influences from other external stakeholders, such as national HTA agencies (currently the most frequent model in Europe).

^cUnits with limited staff but capable of involving other stakeholders acting as allies in their HTA activities.

^dUnits influenced by formal collaboration with the national or regional HTA agencies. Generally, the involvement of HB-HTA units in the technology adoption process is considered good practice and the HTA-based recommendations are closely followed by hospital decision-makers.

CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital; HUG, Geneva University Hospital; EHNV, The North Vaudois Hospital; HCB, The Hospital Clinic of Barcelona; VR&VM, the Virgen del Rocio and Virgen de la Macarena hospitals; HStDJ, the Hospital Sant Joan de Deu.