Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme

JAMA

Volumn 283, Issue 16, 2000, Pages 2116-2121

  Hill, Suzanne R ^a   Mitchell, Andrew S ^b   Henry, David A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^b Australian Capital Territory   (Australia)

^c NEWCASTLE MATER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0034716729     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.16.2116     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Pausjenssen AM, Detsky AS. Guidelines for measuring the costs and consequences of adopting new pharmaceutical products: are they on track? Med Decis Making. 1998;18(suppl 2):S19-S22.
2. Mullins CD, Ogilvie S. Emerging standardization in pharmaco-economics. Clin Ther. 1998;20:1194-1202.
3. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO, on behalf of the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313:275-283.
4. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care. Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 123:61-70.
5. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The Journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:669-670.
6. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature: are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med. 1992:116:238-244.
7. Schulman K, Sulmasy DP, Roney D. Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals. JAMA. 1994;272:154-156.
8. Freemantle N, Maynard A. Something rotten in the state of clinical and economic evaluations? Health Econ. 1994;3:63-67.
9. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
10. Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of the Australian Guidelines for Pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;1:54-67.
11. Drummond MF. Basing prescription drug payment on economic analysis: the case of Australia. Health Aff (Millwood). 1992;11:191-196.
12. Sketris IS, Hill S. The Australian national publicly subsidized Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: any lessons for Canada? Can J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;5:111-118.
13. O'Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein's monster or vampire of trials [review]? Med Care. 1996;34(12 suppl):DS99-DS108.
14. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
15. Freemantle N, Henry DA, Maynard A, Torrance GW. Promoting cost-effective prescribing: Britain lags behind. BMJ. 1995;310:955-956.
16. Industry Commission. The Pharmaceutical Industry. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1996. Appendix H, Report 51.
17. Horwitz RI, Singer BH, Makuch RW, Viscoli CM. Can treatment that is helpful on average be harmful to some patients? a study of the conflicting information needs of clinical inquiry and drug regulation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:395-400.
18. Kessler DA, Feiden KL. Faster evaluation of vital drugs. Sci Am. March 1995:26-32.
19. Fayers PM, Hand DJ. Generalisation from phase III clinical trials: survival, quality of life, and health economics. Lancet. 1997;350:1025-1027.
20. Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care: practice, problems and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:26-36.
21. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The development of health care technology assessment: an international perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11.287-300.
22. Baladi JF, Menon D, Otten N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 years' experience in Canada. Health Econ. 1998;7:221-227.
23. Jefferson T, Demicheli V. Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluations necessary? a survey of current editorial practice. Health Econ. 1995;4:383-388.
24. Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Entwistle V. Assessing quality of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1995;311:393-394.
25. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA. 1999; 282:1452-1457.
26. Krimsky S. Conflict of interest and cost-effectiveness analysis [editorial]. JAMA. 1999;282: 1474-1475.