A survey of standards and guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis in health care

American Heart Journal

Volumn 137, Issue 5, 1999, Pages

  Stewart, Alan ^a,c   Schmier, Jordana K ^b   Luce, Bryan R ^b  

^a MEDTAP International Inc   (United Kingdom)

^b UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^c ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE COST; NOMENCLATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EUROPE; HUMAN; PHARMACOECONOMICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; STANDARD;

CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT;

CARDIOVASCULAR AGENTS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; EUROPE; GUIDELINES; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 0032939939     PISSN: 00028703     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-8703(99)70430-8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. 1. Health Care Financing Administration, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. http://www.hcfa.gov/stats/nhe-oact/tables/t10.htm[web page]. National health expenditures aggregate amounts and average annual percent change, by type of expenditure: selected calendar years 1960-96. [accessed July 2, 1998].
2. 2. Drummond MF. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies: the ways forward. Pharmacoeconomics 1994;6:493-7.
3. 3. Genduso LA, Kotsanos JG. Review of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies, and positions. Drug Information J 1996;30:1003-16.
4. 4. Commonwealth of Australia Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra; Australian Government Printing Office, 1992.
5. 5. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 2nd ed. Ottawa, Canada: CCOHTA; 1997.
6. 6. Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Canada, Ontario, Fall 1994.
7. 7. Principles for the review of pharmacoeconomic promotions: draft guidelines. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration; Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, 1995.
8. 8. Regence Washington Health Pharmacy Services. Version 1.3. Guidelines for the submission of clinical and economic data supporting formulary consideration. Regence Washington Health Services, University of Washington; 1997.
9. 9. Gold M, Siegel J, Russel L, Weinstein M, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
10. 10. Foundation Health Corporation and Integrated Pharmaceutical Services, Rancho Cordova, Ca. Guidelines for Formulary Submissions. October 1996.
11. 11. Department of Health guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals [press release 94/251], Department of Health, London, 1994.
12. 12. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
13. 13. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:61-70.
14. 14. PhRMA Task Force on the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; January 1995.
15. 15. Graf von der Schulenberg JM, Greiner W. Hanover Guidelines für die oekonomische Evaluation von Gesundheitsguetern und-dienstleistungen. Pharm Ind 1995;57:265-8.
16. 16. VFA Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V. Http://www.vfa.de/extern/statistics97/StatF_S58.pd (web page). Sources listed: Institut für Medizinsche Statistik, Bundesveband der Arzneimittelhersteler, Arzneiverordnungs Report 1996. [accessed July 2, 1998].
17. 17. VFA Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V. Http://www/ vfa.de/extern/statistics97/StatF_S58.pd [web page]. Estimates according to KV45 Sources: ABDA-Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Apothekerverbaende, Bundesministrium fuer Gesundheit. [accessed July 2, 1998].
18. 18. La Lettre du Collete. Guidelines and recommendations for French pharmacoeconomic studies. Report by an 18-member committee that met during 1996. Chairman: Professor Emile Levy, under the auspices of the Colleg̀e des Economistes de la Santé.
19. 19. Rovira Forns J, Antoñanzas Villar F. Proposal for standardisation of some methodological aspects of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), cost-utility (CUA) and cost-minimisation analyses (CMA) in the evaluation of health technologies and programmes. [unpublished].
20. 20. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Manual of resource items and their associated costs. Canberra, Australia: 1992.
21. 21. Hanover guidelines for the evaluation of pharmocoeconomics studies. Pharmaco Resources 1995;30:6-7.