The value of health care - A matter of discussion in Germany

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 7, Issue , 2007, Pages

  Porzsolt, Franz ^a,c   Ackermann, Moritz ^a   Amelung, Volker ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

^b HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^c Federal Association of Managed Care   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EVALUATION; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; VALIDITY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVALUATION STUDY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; ORGANIZATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MODELS, ECONOMIC; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 33846604234     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-1     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Porzsolt F, Williams AR, Kaplan RM, (Hrsg): Klinische Ökonomik - Effektivität und Effizienz von Gesundheitsleistungen. 2003 ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft AG & Co.KG .
2. Porzsolt F, Kaplan RM, (eds): Optimizing Health - Improving the Value of Health Care Delivery. Springer, New York; 2006.
3. Kruse A: Geschichte der volkswirtschaftlichen Theorien. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin; 1959:S225.
4. Diener E, Eunkook MS: National Differences in Subjective Well-Being. In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology Edited by: Daniel Kahnemann, Ed Diener und Norbert Schwarz. New York, Russel Sage Foundation; 1999:434-450.
5. Adams J, White M, Moffatt S, Howel D, Mackintosh J: A systematic review of the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:81.
6. Craig D, Nixon J, Armstrong N, Glanville J, Kleijnen J, Drummond M: New BMJ policy on economic evaluations. Response of NHS Economic Evaluation Database Research Team. BMJ 2003, 326:445-450.
7. Kindig D, Day P, Fox DM, Gibson M, Knickman J, Lomas J, Stoddart G: What New Knowledge Would Help Policymakers Better Balance Investments for Optimal Health Outcomes? Health Serv Res 2003, 38:1923-1938.
8. Drummond M, Sculpher M: Better analysis for better decisions: has pharmacoeconomics come of age? Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24:107-108.
9. Osoba D, Hsu MA, Copley-Merriman C, Coombs J, Johnson FR, Hauber B, Manjunath R, Pyles A: Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:273-283.
10. Zentner A, Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R: Methoden zur vergleichenden Bewertung pharmezeutuscher Produkte. Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment des Deutschen Instituts für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (Hrsg): Informationssystem Health Technology Assessement (HTA) in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1. Auflage 2005 DIMDI, Köln .
11. Fuchs VR, Sox HC: Physicians' View of the Relative Importance of Thirty Medical Interventions. Health Affairs 2001, 20(5):30-42.
12. Earle CC, Chapman RA, Baker CS, Bell CM, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ: Systematic Overview of Cost-Utility Assessments in Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18:3302-3317.
13. v.Uexküll Th, Adler RH, Hermann JM: Psychosomatische Medizin. 6.Aufl. Urban & Fischer 2003.
14. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Bell CM: The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1977. Ann Intern Med 2000, 132:964-972.
15. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Graham JD: Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk anal 1995, 15:369-390.
16. Porzsolt F, Leohardt-Huober H, Kaplan RM: Is Perceived Safety a Value for Which to Pay? In Optimizing Health - Improving the Value of Health Care Delivery Edited by: Porzsolt F, Kaplan RM. Springer, New York; 2006.
17. Dinkevich E, Markinson A, Ahsan S, Lawrence B: Effect of a brief intervention on evidence-based medicine skills of pediatric residents. BMC Med Educ 2006, 6:1.
18. Srinivasan M, Weiner M, Breitfeld PP, Brahmi F, Dickerson KL, Weiner G: Early introduction of an evidence-based medicine course to preclinical medical students. J Gen Intern Med 2002, 17:58-65.
19. Siegel JE, Weinstein JC, Russell LB, Gil DR: Recommendations for Reporing Cost-Effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996, 276:1339- 1341.
20. Weinstein JC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB: Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996, 276:1253-1258.
21. Altman DG, Deeks JJ: Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002, 2:1.
22. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N: Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Can Med Assoc J 1995, 152:351-357. Erratum in: Can Med Assoc J 1995;152:813
23. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL: A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med 2003, 18:884-892.
24. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, Gaboury I: Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006, 185:263-267.
25. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Bombardier C: Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2006, 144:364-367.
26. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001, 1:2.
27. Montori VM, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-González I, Busse JW, Pacheco-Huergo V, Bryant D, Alonso J, Akl EA, Domingo-Salvany A, Mills E, Wu P, Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH: Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ 2005, 330:594-596.
28. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ: Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006, 295:1152-1160.
29. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ: A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 2005, 9:R575-582.
30. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999, 354:1896-1900.
31. Nahnhauer A, Kaesbach W: Arzneimittel in Deutschland. Für ein besseres Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnis. Die BKK 2003, 8:17.
32. VFA-Positionspapier "Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln". 2005.
33. IQWIG Abschlußbericht A05-04 Kurzwirksame Insulinanaloga zur Behandlung des Diabetes Mellitus Typ II. 2005.
34. Ruß H, Clouth J, Porzsolt F: Zur Theorie der Brückenprinzipien. Ges polit Komment 2005, 10:14-18.
35. Letzel H: Das deutsche "Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen" (IQWIG) im Spiegel seines Auftrags und seiner Aktivitäten. Pharm Ind 2005, 67:1399-1412.
36. Deutsche Pharmazeutische Gesellschaft, Expertengruppe Arzneimittelinnovation: Kriterien für die Beurteilung von Arzneimittelinnovationen. Positionspapier der Deutschen Pharmazeutischen Gesellschaft unter Mitarbeit der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik. 2005.
37. May U, Münchberg F: Notwendigkeit und Grenzen der Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln - Eine Analyse unter Berücksichtigung gesundheitswissenschaftlicher, therapeutischer und wohlfahrtsökonomischer Aspekte. Gesundh ökon Qual manag 2005, 10:44-49.
38. Rychlik R: Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln - zehn Fallbeispiele. Hrsg. Bundesverband der Pharmazeutischen Industrie e.V. 2005.
39. Marx P, Ruckdäschel S: Perspektiven der Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln. Hrsg. Pfizer GmbH, Karlsruhe. 2004.
40. Perleth M, Busse R: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) - Teil und Methode der Versorgungsforschung. Gesundh ökon Qual manag 2004, 9:172-176.
41. Busse R: Bedeutung von Health Technology Assessment bei Bewertungs- und Erstattungsentscheidungen in Deutschland heute und morgen. Gesundh ökon Qual manag 2005, 10(Supplement 2):52-58.
42. Porzsolt F, Kajnar H, Awa A, Fässler M, Herzberger B: Validity of Original Studies in Health-Technology Assessment (HTA) Reports: Significance of Standardized Assessment and Reporting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005, 21/3:1-4.