Abstract
Scientific and technological advances have increased the capacity to prevent diseases, perform diagnoses, and develop innovative treatments. To analyze whether these technologies should be incorporated into healthcare systems, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Committees were created. There is a debate about who should be part of such committees. Typically, committee members are scientific experts, agents of funding entities (Ministries of Health), and patients as representatives of the community. It is important to reflect on the conflicts of interest that each member may have. Those who come from the scientific sector (universities, research centers) have fewer conflicts of interest and more independence for decision-making. The agents designated as members by the Ministries of Health of each country are usually qualified professionals, but still employees of those who will later have to pay for the technology. The third type of members are patients representing the community. This participation is considered a guarantee of neutrality, however, since patients are affected by the same health problem that is being analyzed, it exists a personal interest in expecting that a new medicine could be accepted to benefit other patients with the same condition (horizontal equity); with a potential risk of not showing the same empathy in recognizing the impact of this decision on other health problems (vertical equity). This text discusses the composition of HTA Committees, the conflicts of interest of its members, and the potential impact of these decisions on equity in access to the population to essential goods.