Cost effects of restricting cost-effective therapy

Medical Care

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 1985, Pages 872-880

  Bloom, Bernard S ^a   Jacobs, Jake ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b Pracon Incorporated ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Cost containment; Cost effectiveness; Medicaid; Peptic ulcer; Pharmaceutical formulary

Indexed keywords

COST; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DRUG CONTROL; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAID; METHODOLOGY; PEPTIC ULCER; SMALL INTESTINE; STOMACH; THERAPY;

CIMETIDINE; COST CONTROL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FORMULARIES; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAID; PEPTIC ULCER; PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T; WEST VIRGINIA;

EID: 0021807861     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198507000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Roche Medicaid Utilization Management Program, Management Applications, No. 22, Section III. The Michigan Primary Care Sponsor Plan. March 1982:7.
2. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Medicare and Medicaid Guide, Number 367. South Dakota. Program Changes. Chicago, May 26, 1983:6.
3. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Medicare and Medicaid Guide, Number 395. Alabama… Inpatient hospital, physician, and prescribed drug services. Chicago, July 14, 1983:6.
4. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Medicare and Medicaid Guide, Number 367. Wisconsin… 90-day freeze on reimbursement rates. Chicago, Illinois, October 5, 1982:7.
5. Hammel R. Insights into Public Assistance Medical Care Expenditures. JAMA 1972;219:1740.
6. Taubman R. An Examination of Economics and Administrative Costs of Drug Formularies. Boston, Northeastern University, 1974.
7. Hefner D. A study to determine the cost effectiveness of a restrictive formulary: the Louisiana experience. Washington, DC: National Pharmaceutical Council, 1979.
8. Hefner D. Cost effectiveness of a restrictive drug formulary: Louisiana vs. Texas. Washington, DC: National Pharmaceutical Council, 1980.
9. Jacobs J, Meyerhoff AS, Sudovar SG. The impact of formulary restriction on diazepam patients. Fairfax, VA: Pracon, 1983.
10. Sudovar SG, Rein S. Managing Medicaid drug expenditures: an analysis of divergent approaches. Nutley, NJ: Hoffmann-La Roche, 1978.
11. Neuhauser D. New drug evaluation: cimetidine. Med Care 1982;20:755.
12. Geweke J, Weisbrod B. Clinical evaluation vs. economic evaluation: the case of a new drug. Med Care 1982;20:821.
13. Neuhauser D. Survey of research results and current status of CBA/CEA in technology assessment: cimetidine as a model. In Bloom BS, ed. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in policymaking: cimetidine as a model. Proceedings of an International Symposium, November 22-24, 1981, Tarpon Springs, Florida. New York: Biomedical Information Corporation. 1982.
14. Yett DE. Evaluating the cost effectiveness of a health care innovation: the case of cimetidine. Presented at the American Economics Association Convention, December 26-29, 1982, New York, New York.
15. Wyllie JH, Clark CG, Alexander-Williams J, et al. Effect of cimetidine on surgery for duodenal ulcer. Lancet 1981; 1:1307.
16. Fineberg HV, Pearlman LA. Surgical treatment of peptic ulcer in the United States: trends before and after the introduction of cimetidine. Lancet 1981;2: 1305.
17. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, State Tables Fiscal Year 1982. Medicaid: recipient, payments and services. Baltimore, MD, 1983.
18. West Virginia Department of Welfare. Notice of Medicaid policy change. Charleston, WV, 1982.