Health technology assessment (HTA) aims, through empirical analysis, to shed light on the value of health technologies (O’Rourke et al. [2020, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 36, 187–90]). HTA is, then, where facts and values meet. But how, where, and when do facts and values meet in HTA? Currently, HTA is usually portrayed as a sequential process, starting with empirical analysis (assessment), followed by a deliberation on the implications of the findings for a judgment of a health technology’s value (appraisal). In this paper, we will argue that in HTA, empirical analysis and normative inquiry are much more closely entwined. In fact, as we hope to show, normative commitments act as an indispensable guide for the collection and interpretation of empirical evidence. Drawing on policy sciences, we will suggest a concrete methodology that can help HTA practitioners to integrate empirical analysis and normative inquiry in a transparent way. The proposed methodology can be conceived as a concrete means for conducting a scoping exercise in HTA. Moreover, it offers a distinct way of giving stakeholders a structural and constructive role in HTA. This paper outlines the approach developed by the values in doing assessments of health technologies project, a project funded by the Erasmus+ program (contract number 2018-1-NL01-KA203-038960), which is the European Union’s program to support education, training, youth, and sport in Europe. The project has resulted in an E-learning course, an accompanying handbook, and a consensus statement, all freely available from the project’s website www.validatehta.eu.

Objectives: The practical significance of health technology assessment (HTA) in policy decisions or clinical practice has been challenged. Possibly, problem definitions underlying HTA do not concur sufficiently with the problem definitions held by policy makers or clinicians. We performed an in-depth case study on mebeverine, a drug prescribed to patients with irritable bowel syndrome, to explore this hypothesis.

Methods: The theoretical framework was provided by the theory of argumentative policy analysis. We analyzed documents and held semistructured interviews to collect data. We reconstructed interpretative frames to analyze actors' argumentation.

Results: The funding and usage problems relating to mebeverine were ill-structured. Actors disagreed on the information needed and the norms at stake. As a result, the problem definition shifted, and the resulting problem definitions failed to correspond with the problems perceived by the target populations.

Conclusions: To ensure that future studies on healthcare problems are useful, it is imperative that policy makers take the problem definitions of potential users into account.