Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences.

All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes.

A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (−.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies.

A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, “best-practice” guidelines for successful MEA implementation.