Meeting the information needs of drug purchasers: The evolution of formulary submission guidelines

Clinical Therapeutics

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 768-787

  Langley, Paul C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Australia; Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Evaluation methodology; Guidelines; Population management

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG FORMULARY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG PROGRAM; DRUG SCREENING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033050505     PISSN: 01492918     EISSN: 1879114X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)88328-9     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Commonwealth Department of Health,Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry onthe Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1992.
2. United Kingdom National Health Service.Faster Access to Modern Treatment: How NICE Appraisal Will Work. Discussion Paper. January 1999.
3. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products, Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health; 1994.
4. Swiss Federal Office of Social Security. Manual for the Standardisation of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology. Bern: Federal Office of Social Security; 1995.
5. Levy E. Recommendations de Bonnes Pratiques des Methodes d'Evaluation Economique des Strategies Therapeutiques. Paris: College des Economistes dela Sante; 1997.
6. Langley PC, Martin RE. Guidelines for Formulary Submissions, October 1996. Rancho Cordova, Calif: Foundation Health and Integrated Pharmaceutical Services; 1997.
7. Regence Washington Health Pharmacy Services. Guidelines for the Submission of Clinical and Economic Data Supporting Formulary Consideration. Seattle, Wash: Regence Washington Health; 1997.
8. Guidelines for Formulary Submissions for Pharmaceutical Product Evaluation. Denver, Colo: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Nevada; 1998.
9. Commonwealth Department of Health,Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry onthe Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analysis). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
10. Gold MR, Siegal JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health inMedicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
11. Langley PC. Pharmacoeconomics: Achieving Gold Standards. London: FT Healthcare; 1997.
12. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL,Torrance GW. Methods for the EconomicEvaluation of Health Care Programmes.2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
13. Industry Commission. The Pharmaceutical Industry. Report No. 51. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1996.
14. Grobler MP, Macarounas-Kirchmann K, Pearcc GA, Stafford M. Industry comment on the 1995 revised Australian pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Pharmaco-Economics. 1996;9:353-356.
15. Langley PC. The November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economicevaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmaco-Economics. 1996;9:341-352.
16. Performance Audit: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Canberra: Australian National Audit Office; November 1997.
17. Drummond MF, Aristides A. The Australian cost-effectiveness guidelines: An update. In: Towse A, ed. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Can the UK Learn from Australia and Canada? London: Office of Health Economics; 1997.
18. Langley PC, Sullivan SD. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations: Guidelines for drug purchasers. J Man Care Pharm. 1996:2:671-677.