Modelling downstream effects in the presence of technological change

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 991-1003

  Mortimer, Duncan ^a,b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Health policy; Modelling; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

HEPATITIS B VACCINE; REBETRON; RECOMBINANT ALPHA INTERFERON;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEPATITIS B; HUMAN; LIVER CANCER; LIVER CIRRHOSIS; NOTE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL; UNCERTAINTY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; TECHNOLOGY; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 56549115872     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/0019053-200826120-00003     Document Type: Note

References (33)

1. Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996: 247-75
2. Briggs A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 1472-214
3. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.1): translating the clinical evaluation to the listing requested for inclusion in the economic evaluation 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health. gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ pbacguidelines- index~pbacguidelines-part2~pbacguidelines-part2_c [Accessed 2007 Jun 1]
4. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3 (2): 95-104
5. Buxton M, Drummond M, Van Hout B, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217-27
6. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Guide-based lines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rees-france.com/IMG/pdf/ 2006_CCOHTA _EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 3]
7. Salomon J, Weinstein MC, Goldie S. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329: 733-6
8. Grieve R. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of new interventions: how can technological change be incorporated? In: Roberts J, editor. The economics of infectious disease. London: Oxford University Press, 2006
9. Murray C. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray C, Lopez MA, editors. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. WHO: Harvard University Press, 1996: 1-98
10. Viscusi WK. Discounting health effects for medical decisions. In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 125-47
11. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (31): 300-6
12. Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Edejer TT, et al. Generalised costeffectiveness analysis for national-level priority setting in the health sector. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2003; 1 (1): 8
13. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, et al. Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency changes in industrialised countries. Am Econ Rev 1994; 84 (1): 66-83
14. Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff 2001; 20 (5): 11-29
15. Cutler DM, Rosen A, Vijan S. The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960-2000. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 (9): 920-7
16. Porter R. The greatest benefit to mankind: a medical history of humanity from antiquity to the present. London: Harper Collins, 1997
17. Weatherall DJ. Science and the quiet art: the role of research in medicine. New York: Rockefeller University, W. W. Norton, and Oxford University Press, 1995
18. Sheldon TA. Discounting in health care decision-making: time for a change? J Public Health Med 1992; 14 (3): 250-6
19. van Hout BA. Discounting costs and effects: a reconsideration. Health Econ 1998; 7 (7): 581-94
20. Olsen JA. On what basis should health be discounted? J Health Econ 1993; 12 (1): 39-53
21. Weinstein MC. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 93-103
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [reference N1618]. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdated June2008.pdf [Accessed 2008 Oct 29]
23. Calvert MJ, Freemantle N, Yao G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the CARE-HF trial. Eur Heart J 2005; 26 (24): 2681-8
24. Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond M, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006; 15: 677-87
25. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418-24
26. Sculpher M, Poole L, Cleland J, et al. Low doses versus high doses of the angiotensin convertingenzyme inhibitor lisinopril in chronic heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study. Eur J Heart Fail 2000; 2: 447-54
27. University of Otago. Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences [online]. Available from http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/ [Accessed 2008 Oct 17]
28. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Horizon scanning service [online]. Available from http://cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/programs/ horizon-scanning [Accessed 2008 Oct 17]
29. The University of Adelaide. Adelaide Health Technology Assessment. Horizon scanning [online]. Available from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ahta/ whatwedo/horscan/ [Accessed 2008 Oct 17]
30. Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network [online]. Available from http://www.horizonscanning.gov.au/internet/horizon/publishing.nsf/content/ healthpact-2 [Accessed 2008 Oct 17]
31. Royal Australian College of Surgeons. Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures - Surgical (ASERNIP-S) [online]. Available from http://www.surgeons.org/content/navigationmenu/research/asernips/asernipsnets/ [Accessed 2008 Oct 17]
32. Owen J, Haese R, Haese S, et al. Growth and Decay Revisited. Adelaide: Haese & Harris Publications, 2004: 99-100 & 112-4
33. Baker E, Clarke L, Keisler J, et al. Uncertainty, technical change and policy models [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/ faculty/baker/framework_07_20_jkeb_lec1.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 3]