Erratum: Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: Results from a pilot study (Health Policy (2004) 70 (33-48) DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.01.009);Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: Results from a pilot study

Health Policy

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 33-48

  Al, Maiwenn J ^a   Feenstra, Talitha ^b   Brouwer, Werner B F ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Budget allocation; Budget constraints; Cost effectiveness analysis; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUDGET; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; PILOT STUDY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 4143127681     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.09.006     Document Type: Erratum

References (29)

1. Karlsson G., Johannesson M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 9:1996;113-120
2. Weinstein M.C., Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. Journal of Public Economics. 2:1973;147-157
3. Laska E.M. Ratio-based and net benefit-based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence. Health Economics. 8:1999;171-174
4. Birch S., Donaldson C. Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory. Journal of Health Economics. 6:1987;211-225
5. Birch S., Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses. Do current decision rules lead us where we want to be. Journal of Health Economics. 11:1992;279-296
6. Birch S., Gafni A. Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein's (mis)application of economics to real world problems. Journal of Health Economics. 12:1993;469-476
7. Gafni A., Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Canadian Medical Association. 148:1993;913-917
8. Drummond M., Brown R., Fendrick A.M., Fullerton P., Neumann P., Taylor R., et al. Use of pharmacoeconomics information: report of the ISPOR task force of pharmacoeconomic/health economic information in health-care decision making. Value in Health. 6:2003;407-416
9. Anell A., Svarvar P. Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines. A survey of attitudes in Swedish formulary committees. Pharmacoeconomics. 17:2000;175-185
10. Hoffmann C., Graf von der Schulenburg J.M. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 52:2000;179-192
11. Iversen PB. Why are so few health economic evaluations used for priority setting and policy formulation? Ihea 2001, Abstract book. York: University of York; 2001.
12. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
13. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
14. Brouwer W.B.F., Koopmanschap M.A. On the Economic Foundations of CEA. Gentlemen (m/f), take your positions. Journal of Health Economics. 19:2000;439-459
15. Sugden R, Williams A. The principles of practical cost-benefit analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1978.
16. Drummond MF. Australian guidelines for cost-effectiveness studies of pharmaceuticals: the thin end of the boomerang? Centre for Health Economics Discussion, Paper 88. York: University of York; 1991.
17. Hirth R.A., Chernew M.E., Orzol S.M. Ownership, competition, and the adoption of new technologies and cost-saving practices in a fixed-price environment. Inquiry. 37:2000;282-294
18. Cookson R. Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study. Journal of Health and Economics. 19:2000;369-401
19. Stolk E.A., Brouwer W.B.F., Busschbach J.J.V. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy. 59:2002;53-63
20. Zwart-Van Rijkom J.E.F., Leufkens H.G.M., Busschbach J.J.V., Broekmans A.W., Rutten F.F.H. Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET Project. Pharmacoeconomics. 18:2000;149-160
21. Donaldson C. The (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis: fact or fallacy. Pharmacoeconomics. 13:1998;389-396
22. Elsinga E., Rutten F.F.H. Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: the case of The Netherlands. Social Science and Medicine. 45:1997;605-620
23. Abbühl BE. Results from the Austrian survey. In: Graf von der Schulenburg J-M, editor. The influence of economic evaluation studies on health care decision making. IOS Press; 2000.
24. Van Rijkom JEF, Rutten FFH. The Dutch results from the EUROMET Project. In: Graf von der Schulenburg J-M, editor. The influence of economic evaluation studies on health care decision making. IOS Press; 2000.
25. Ross J. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers perceptions. Health Policy. 31:1995;103-110
26. Lyles A., Luce B.R., Rentz A.M. Managed care pharmacy, socioeconomic assessments and drug adoption decisions. Social Science and Medicine. 45:1997;511-521
27. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the fair innings argument. Health Economics. 6:1997;117-132
28. Toenders WGM. Breedte geneesmiddelenpakket. Amstelveen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2001 [in Dutch].
29. Stolk EA, Poley M, Brouwer WBF, van Busschbach JJ. Proeftoetsing iMTA-model. In: Toenders WGM, editor. Vervolgonderzoek breedte geneesmiddelenpakket. Amstelveen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2002 [in Dutch].