> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.consensus.app/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Assemble a payer evidence dossier
> Pull the cost-effectiveness, burden-of-illness, and real-world evidence a reimbursement submission needs, in one pass.
## What you get
A structured evidence pack spanning four literatures that rarely sit together: clinical efficacy, burden of illness, economic evaluation, and real-world outcomes — each section cited, with the gaps named.
## Who it's for
HEOR and market access teams building reimbursement submissions, and the consultancies who build them on their behalf.
## Why this one is awkward
Payer dossiers span clinical and economic literature that use different vocabularies, sit in different journals, and are indexed under different fields. A single query returns one of them and misses the rest. The fix is running four deliberately separate searches and keeping them separate in the output.
## The four searches
| Section | What you are looking for | Filters that help |
| ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Clinical efficacy** | Trials and meta-analyses establishing the effect | `study_types=rct,meta-analysis`, `human=true` |
| **Burden of illness** | Prevalence, mortality, quality of life, productivity loss | `domain=med,econ`, `study_types=cohort study,cross-sectional study` |
| **Economic evaluation** | Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, budget impact | `domain=econ,med` |
| **Real-world evidence** | Registry, claims, and observational outcomes outside trials | `study_types=cohort study,longitudinal / panel data study` |
```bash theme={null}
curl -G "https://api.consensus.app/v1/search" \
-H "x-api-key: $CONSENSUS_API_KEY" \
--data-urlencode "query=cost-effectiveness analysis quality-adjusted life year heart failure treatment" \
--data-urlencode "domain=econ,med" \
--data-urlencode "human=true" \
--data-urlencode "page_size=50"
```
Add `country` when the submission is to a specific national payer — cost-effectiveness evidence is jurisdiction-dependent, and a US cost-per-QALY carries little weight with a European HTA body.
## The prompt
```text theme={null}
You are assembling the evidence base for a reimbursement dossier. Report each
section separately; do not merge them into a single narrative.
Product: [NAME] Indication: [INDICATION] Payer / jurisdiction: [MARKET]
1. Clinical efficacy — the effect, its size, its certainty, in whom.
2. Burden of illness — prevalence, mortality, quality of life, and economic
burden in the target jurisdiction where available. If the evidence is from
another country, say which and flag the transfer as an assumption.
3. Economic evaluation — published cost-effectiveness work, with the model type,
perspective, time horizon, and threshold used. Note when a study's
jurisdiction, currency, or year makes it non-comparable.
4. Real-world evidence — outcomes outside trial conditions, and how they differ
from trial results.
Then:
- Where the four sections disagree, and the most likely reason.
- Evidence gaps a payer is likely to challenge, stated plainly.
- What additional evidence would most strengthen the submission.
Cite everything with journal, year, and DOI.
```
## Audit requirements
Follow the [grounding rules](/use-cases/best-practices#grounding-and-auditability). Log the four search sets separately with their counts. If a section returned little — economic evaluations are frequently sparse for newer products — that sparsity is a finding a payer will also notice, so report it rather than padding.
## What to check before you trust it
A literature pack is an input to a submission, not a submission. HTA requirements are jurisdiction-specific and prescriptive; the dossier's structure and evidence standards come from the payer's own guidance, not from this workflow.
* **Check jurisdiction on every economic study.** Cost-effectiveness does not transfer across health systems, and a reviewer will spot a mismatched threshold immediately.
* **Check currency and year.** Costs from a decade ago in another currency need conversion and inflation adjustment before they mean anything.
* **Read the gap section first.** Where the evidence is thin is exactly where the payer will push, so it is the most useful output.
* **Real-world and trial evidence disagreeing is normal.** Explain the gap rather than presenting only the flattering one.
## Related
Keep watching the evidence base after submission.
Score the evidence you assemble consistently.
Fan-out and merge, and the rest of the primitives.
Browse the gallery by persona.