Public health services and cost-effectiveness analysis

Annual Review of Public Health

Volumn 29, Issue , 2008, Pages 383-397

  Banta, H David ^a   De Wit, G Ardine ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

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

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Health insurance coverage; Health policy; Pharmaceuticals; Prevention

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; PUBLIC HEALTH;

EID: 42649095183     PISSN: 01637525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090808     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (64)

1. Baltussen R, Brouwer W, Niessen L. 2005. Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting in health: penny-wise but pound-foolish. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21:532-34
2. Banta HD, Hatziandreu E, Dauben HP, Forde OH, Loud ML, et al. 2002. Health promotion and disease prevention as a complement to community health indicators. Working Group 1. ECHTA/ECAHI project. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18:218-37
3. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Assoc. 2000. TEC Bull. 17:No. 4. http://www.bluecross.com
4. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Assoc. 1994. The Decision Maker's Guide to the Technology Evaluation Center. Chicago: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Assoc.
5. Bos M. 2000. Health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16:485-519
6. Buxton MJ. 2006. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1133-42
7. Can. Coord. Off. Health Technol. Assess. 1997. Guide for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Ottawa: Can. Coord. Off. Health Technol. Assess. 2nd ed.
8. Cochrane Collab. http://www.cochrane.org
9. Coffield A, Maciosek M, McGinnis M. 2001. Priorities among recommended clinical preventive services. Am. J. Prev. Med. 21:1-9
10. Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen (Health Care Ins. Board). 1997. Toetsing geneesmiddelenpakket [Assessment of the benefits package regarding pharmaceuticals]. Amstelveen: Ziekenfondsraad
11. Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen (Health Care Ins. Board). 1999. Richtlijnen voor farmacoeconomische onderzoek [Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research]. Amstelveen: Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen
12. Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen (Health Care Ins. Board). 2000. Procedure aanvraag vergoeding geneesmiddel (Procedure for reimbursement of pharmaceuticals). Amstelveen: Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen. http://www.cvz.nl
13. Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen (Health Care Ins. Board). 2007. Rapport pakketadvies 2007 (Report on health care basket 2007). Diemen: Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen, Rep. 248
14. Cox ER, Motheral BR, Griffis D. 2000. Relevance of pharmacoeconomics and health outcomes information to health care decisionmakers in the United States. Value Health 3:162 (Abstr.)
15. Cranovsky R, Matillon Y, Banta HD. 1997. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on coverage. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 13:287-332
16. Cranovsky R, Schilling J, Faisst K. 2000. Health technology assessment in Switzerland. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16:576-90
17. Dep. Health. 1998. The First Report of the National Screening Committee. London: Dep. Health
18. De Wolf P, Brouwer WBF, Rutten FFH. 2005. Regulating the Dutch pharmaceutical market: improving efficiency or controlling costs? Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 20:351-74
19. Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. 2000. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16:165-71
20. Drummond M, Pang F. 2001. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice, ed. M Drummond, A McGuire, pp. 256-76. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
21. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. 2005. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 3rd ed.
22. Dunning A. 1991. Kiezen en delen (Choices in health care). Rijswijk: Minist. Health Neth.
23. Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, Diez L. 1999. Research into the use of health economics in decisionmaking in the United Kingdom. Health Policy 46:143-57
24. Eddy D. 1992. A Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Policies. Philadelphia: Am. Coll. Physicians
25. Eddy D. 1996. Benefit language, criteria that will improve quality while reducing costs. JAMA 275:650-57
26. Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, et al. 2003. WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Geneva: WHO
27. Eng. Phys. Sci. Res. Counc. (EPSRC). 2007. Match Renewal Review. Swindon, UK: EPSRC
28. Ess SM, Schneeweiss S, Szucs TD. 2003. European healthcare policies for controlling drug expenditure. Pharmacoeconomics 21:89-103
29. Garber A. 2001. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff. 20:62-82
30. Gen. Account. Off. 2003. Medicare: Divided Authority for Policies on Coverage of Procedures and Devices Results in Inequities. Washington, DC: Gen. Account. Off.
31. Goddard M, Hauck K, Preker A, Smith P. 2005. Priority setting in health - a political economy perspective. Health Econ. Policy Law 1:79-90
32. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
33. Goldsmith L, Henderson B, Hurley J. 2004. Economic Evaluation across the Four Faces of Prevention: A Canadian Perspective. Hamilton, Ont.: McMaster Univ., Cent. Health Econ. Policy Anal.
34. Gress S, Niebuhr D, Rothgang H, Wasem J. 2005. Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care. A comparative perspective. Health Policy 73:78-91
35. Grosse SD, Teutsch SM, Haddix AC. 2007. Lessons from cost-effectiveness research for United States Public Health Policy. Annu. Rev. Public Health 28:19-31
36. Hauck K, Smith P, Goddard M. 2003. The Economics of Priority Setting for Health Care: A Literature Review. Washington, DC: The World Bank
37. Health Counc. Neth. 2007. The Future of the National Immunisation Programme: Towards a Programme for All Age Groups. The Hague: Health Counc. Neth., Publ. No. 2007/02
38. Health Econ. Eval. Database (HEED). 2007. http://www.ihe-heed.com
39. Holland W. 2004. Health technology assessment and public health: a commentary. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20:77-80
40. Iglesias C, Drummond M, Rovira J. 2005. Health-care decision-making processes in Latin America: problems and prospects for the use of economic evaluation. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21:1-15
41. Kanovos P, ed. 1989. Pharmacoepidemiology. London: Churchill-Livingstone
42. Kanovos P. 2001. Overview of Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Regulation in Europe. London: London Sch. Econ.
43. Leichter H. 1991. Politics and Health Promotion in the United States and Great Britain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
44. Maciosek M, Coffield A, Edwards W. 2006. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services. Am. J. Prev. Med. 31:52-61
45. Maciosek M, Coffield A, McGinnis M. 2001. Methods for priority setting among clinical preventive services. Am. J. Prev. Med. 21:10-19
46. Marino P, Siani C, Roche H. 2005. Impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness analysis of medical strategies: the case of high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer patients. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21:342-50
47. Mossialos E, Mrazek M, Walley T, eds. 2004. Regulating Pharmaceuticals in Europe: Striving for Efficiency, Equity and Quality. Berkshire: Open Univ. Press
48. Natl. Inst. Clin. Excell. (NICE). 2004. Guide to the Method of Technology Appraisal (Ref. N0515). http://www.nice.org.uk
49. Natl. Inst. Clin. Excell. (NICE). 2005. Social value judgements - principles for the development of NICE guidance. http://www.nice.org.uk
50. NHS Cent. Rev. Dissent., Univ. York. 1995. Review of the research on the effectiveness of health services interventions to reduce variations in health. CRD Rep. 3. York: NHS Cent. Rev. Dissem.
51. NHS Cent. Rev. Dissent., Univ. York. 2000. Evidence from systematic reviews of research relevant to implementing the "wide public health" agenda. York: NHS Cent. Rev. Dissem.
52. NHS Cent. Rev. Dissem. 2001. HTA database. http://www.nhscrd.co.uk
53. Nyborg K. 1998. Some Norwegian politicians use of cost-benefit studies. Publ. Choice 95:381-401
54. Ross J. 1995. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decisionmakers perceptions. Health Policy 31:103-10
55. Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, Lankshear A, Lowson K, et al. 2004. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. Br. Med. J. 329:999-1003
56. Sonnad S, Greenberg D, Rosen A, Neumann P. 2005. Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21:399-402
57. Stolk EA, Rutten FFH. 2005. The "Health Benefit Basket" in the Netherlands. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6(Suppl. 1):53-57
58. Toenders WGM. 2001. Breedte geneesmiddelenpakket [Width of the benefits package regarding pharmaceuticals]. Amstelveen: Coll. voor Zorgverzekeringen
59. Tunis SR. 2002. Why Medicare has not established criteria for coverage decisions. N. Engl. J. Med. 350:2196-98
60. Tunis SR, Kang JL. 2001. Improvements in Medicare coverage of new technology. Health Aff. (Millwood) 20(5):83-85
61. US Prev. Task Force. 1996. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. 2nd ed. http://www.ahrq.gov
62. Welte R, Trotter CL, Edmunds WJ, Postma MJ, Beutels P. 2005. The role of economic evaluation in vaccine decision making. Focus on meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine. Pharmacoeconomics 23:855-74
63. WHO. 2004. World Medicines Situation. Geneva: WHO
64. WHO, Eur. Off. 2000. Policies on Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicines in Europe. Copenhagen: WHO