Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: When costing less means costing more [1]

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 523-528

  Gafni, Amiram ^a   Birch, Stephen ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; DRUG ELUTING STENT; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; LETTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH POLICY; ONTARIO; RESEARCH;

EID: 34249799307     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200725060-00007     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Goeree R, Levin L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework. An integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24: 1143-56
2. Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.path-hta.ca/ [Accessed 17 Dec 2006]
3. Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, et al. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. Can Med Assoc J 2005; 173: 345-51
4. Bowen J, Hopkins R, He Y, et al. Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions in Ontario: interim report for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Hamilton (ON): Program for Assessment of Technology in Health, McMaster University, 2005. Report No. HTA002-0512. Contract No. 06129 [online]. Available at URL: http://www.path-hta.ca/DESreport.pdf [Accessed 17 Dec 2006]
5. Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2091-100
6. Laupacis A. Inclusions of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? Can Med Assoc J 2002; 166: 44-7
7. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2004
8. Williams A. The economic role of 'health indicators'. In: Teeling Smith G, editor. Measuring the social benefit of medicine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1983: 63-7
9. Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279-96
10. Birch S, Gafni A. Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein's (mis)application of economics to the real world. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 469-76
11. Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148: 913-7
12. Gafni A, Birch S. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: should 'reasonable decisions' lead to uncontrolled growth in expenditures? Can Med Assoc J 2003; 168: 849-51
13. Gafni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics, 2003; 21: 149-57
14. Birch S, Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or the bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of a cost effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Pol 2006; 11: 46-51
15. Naylor CD. Cost-effectiveness analysis: are the outputs worth the inputs? ACP J Club 1996; 124: A12-4