Use of pharmacoeconomics information - Report of the ISPOR Task Force on use of pharmacoeconomic/health economic information in health-care decision making

Value in Health

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 407-416

  Drummond, Michael ^a   Brown, Ruth ^b   Fendrick, A Mark ^c   Fullerton, Pete ^d   Neumann, Peter ^e   Taylor, Rod ^f   Barbieri, Marco ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDTAP International   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^g Innovus Research   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Decision making; Guidelines; Implementation

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SURVEY; MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0042991448     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.64245.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. McCain J. System helps P & T committees get pharmacoeconomic data they need. Manag Care 2001;April:24C-24J.
2. Barbieri M, Drummond MF. The Use of HTA Evidence in Decision-Making. Report to ECHTA/ECAHI Working Group 6. Mimeo: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2001.
3. Ross J. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers' perceptions. Health Policy 1995;31:103-10.
4. Luce BR, Brown RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1995;11:79-92.
5. Luce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM. The view from managed care pharmacy. Health Aff 1996;15:168-76.
6. Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Das A. The review process used by US health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:294-302.
7. Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF. Coverage decisions for medical technology by managed care. relationship to organizational and physician payment characteristics. Am J Man Care 1996;2:1321-31.
8. Drummond MF, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:583-95.
9. Sloan FA, Whetten-Goldstein K, Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decisions, cost-containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:523-33.
10. Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, Diez L. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom - Phase II. Health Policy 1999;46:143-57.
11. Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, on behalf of the EUROMET group. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. Health Policy 2000;52:179-92.
12. Burns A, Charlwood P, Darling D, et al. Better Information, Better Outcomes: The Use of Health Technology Assessment and Clinical Effectiveness Data in Health Care Purchasing Decisions in the United Kingdom and the United States. Washington DC: Millbank Memorial Fund, 2000 Jul.
13. Motheral BR, Grizzle AJ, Armstrong EP, et al. Role of pharmacoeconomics in drug benefit decision-making: results of a survey. Formulary 2000;35:416-21.
14. Cox E, Motheral B, Griffis D. Relevance of pharmacoeconomics and health outcomes information to health care decision-makers in the United States. Value Health 2000;3:162.
15. Ginsberg ME, Kravitz RL, Sandberg WA. A survey of physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient care. West J Med 2000;173:390-3.
16. Anell A, Svarvar P. Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines: a survey of attitudes in Swedish Formulary Committees. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:175-85.
17. Hoffmann C, Stoykova BA, Nixon J, et al. Do healthcare decision-makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities. Value Health 2002;5:71-8.
18. Grizzle AJ, Olson BM, Motheral BR, et al. Therapeutic value: who decides? Pharmaceut Executive 2000;18:84-90.
19. Caro J, Klittich W, McGuire A, et al. The West of Scotland coronary prevention study: economic benefit analysis of primary prevention with pravastatin. Br Med J 1997;315:1577-82.
20. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
21. Drummond MF, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In: Drummond MF, McGuire AL, eds., Economic Evaluation of Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
22. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines - similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001;4:225-50.
23. Hutton J, Brown RE. Use of economic evaluation in decision making: what needs to change? Value Health 2002;5:65-6.
24. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998;7:723-40.
25. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 2000;320:1530-3.
26. Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. A Proposal for Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Brussels: Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (BESPE), 1995.
27. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals (2nd ed.). Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1997.
28. Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Ontario: The Ministry, 1994.
29. College des Economistes de la Sante. Guidelines and Recommendations for French Pharmaco-Economic Studies: Evaluation for French Pharmaco-Economic Studies. Paris: The College, 1997.
30. Graf VD, Schulenberg JM. Hanover Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Health Services [in German: Hanover Guidelines für die ökonomische Evaluation von Gesundheitsgütern und -dienstleistungen]. (Diskussionspapier Nr 10, Vol. 57). Hanover: Institute für Versicherungsbetriebslehre, Die Pharmazeutishe Industrie, 1995 Jan. p. 265-8.
31. Szende Á, Mogyorósy Z, Pallos G, et al. Methodological Guidelines for Conducting Economic Evaluation of Health-Care Interventions in Hungary. 2001. Available on request: AgotaSzende@hotmail.com
32. Ziekenfondraad. Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondraad), 1999.
33. Norwegian Medicines Control Authority. The Norwegian Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in Connection with Application for Reimbursement. Oslo: Norwegian Medicines Control Authority Department of Pharmacoeconomics, 1999.
34. Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Polish guidelines for conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Farm Ekon 2000(Suppl 1).
35. The Portuguese Pharmacy and Medicines Institute. Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies on Drugs. Lisbon: INFARMED, 1998.
36. Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung. Swiss Manual for the Standardization of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology. (Second draft). Bern: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung, 1995.
37. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party (Drummond MF, Chair). Guidelines for authors and peer-reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Br Med J 1996;313:275-83.
38. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Revised Guidelines for Manufacturers, Sponsors of Technologies Making Submissions to the Institute [Internet]. Technology Appraisal Process Series No. 5. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk
39. Gricar JA, Langley PC, Luce B, et al. AMCP's Format for Formulary Submissions: A Format for Submissions of Clinical and Economic Evaluation Data in Support of Formulary Consideration by Managed Health Care Systems in the United States. Alexandria (VA): Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP).
40. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Methodological and Conduct Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Washington (DC): PhRMA, 1995.