Issues for countries considering introducing the "fourth hurdle": The case of Hungary

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 337-341

  Gulácsi, László ^a   Boncz, Imre ^b   Drummond, Michael ^c  

^a Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation   (Hungary)

^b Natl Hlth Ins Fund Administration   (Hungary)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Drug; Effectiveness; Fourth hurdle; Hungary

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DRUG PRODUCTS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SURVEYS;

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA);

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; HUNGARY; REIMBURSEMENT;

EID: 4043131553     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462304001151     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Anon A. UK risk-sharing dealfor MS products. Scrip No 2718, February 6, 2002. Richmond: PJB Publications; 2002:2.
2. Buxton M. Cost-effectiveness and guidance: Lessons from NICE 3 years on. Presentation to ISPOR 5th Annual European Conference, Rotterdam; November 4, 2002.
3. Drummond MF. Basing prescription drug payment on economic analysis: The case of Australia. Health Aff (Millwood). 1992;11:191-196.
4. Drummond M. Time for change in drug licensing requirements? Eur J Health Econ. 2002;3:137-138.
5. Drummond M. Will there ever be a European drug pricing and reimbursement agency? Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:67-69.
6. Gulácsi L, David T, Dózsa Cs. Pricing and reimbursement of drugs and medical devices in Hungary. Eur J Health Econ. 2002;3:271-278.
7. Henry D, Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: The development of the Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;1:54-67.
8. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses. A review of submission to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA. 2000;283:2116-2121.
9. Hutton J. European level cost-effectiveness analysis as a basis for reimbursement of drugs: Policy breakthrough or unattainable. DIA Euro Meeting, Rome, March 6, 2003.
10. Lohr KN, Eleazer K, Mauskopf J. Health policy issues and applications for evidence based medicine and clinical practice guidelines. Health Policy. 1998;46:1-19.
11. Budapest Ministry of Health, Social and Family Affairs. Budapest methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of health care interventions in Hungary. J Ministry Health Soc Family Affairs. 2002;52:1314-1334.
12. Oortwijn W, Vondeling H, Barneveld T, et al. Priority setting for health technology assessment in the Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227-242.
13. Revicki DA, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:423-434.
14. Rutten F, Gulácsi L. Using economic evaluation in health policy: Options for health care systems in transition. Eur J Health Econ. 2002(Suppl 1):S8-S9.
15. Shani S, Siebzehner MI, Luxenburg O. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level: The Israeli experience. Health Policy. 2000;54:169-185.
16. Sketris IS, Hill S. The Australian national publicly subsidised pharmaceutical benefit scheme: Any lesson for Canada? Can J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;5:111-118.
17. Hungarian Ministry of Health. The National Public Health Programme 2001-2010. Budapest: Ministry of Health; 2001.