Darzi on nice: The case for clinician engagement in HTA

Health Economics

Volumn 17, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1323-1327

  Bryan, Stirling ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

DRUG APPROVAL; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL PROFESSION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; STATE MEDICINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 61749089849     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1433     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Birch S, Gafni A. 2002. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Economics 11: 185-191.
2. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. 2007. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in NICE technology appraisals. Health Economics 16(2): 179-193.
3. Crosson FJ. 2003. Kaiser Permanente: a propensity for partnership. British Medical Journal 326: 654.
4. House of Commons Health Committee. 2008. HC 27-I, 2008, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
5. Pearson S, Rawlins M. 2005. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. Journal of the American Medical Association 294: 2618-2622.
6. Secretary of State for Health. 2008. High Quality Care for All (Cm 7432, 2008), Secretary of State for Health.
7. Wailoo A, Pickstone C. 2008. A Review of the NICE single technology appraisal process, unpublished.