Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2009, Pages

  Sullivan, Sean D ^a   Watkins, John ^b   Sweet, Brian ^c   Ramsey, Scott D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Premera Blue Cross   (United States)

^c Wellpoint Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; HTA; Unites States

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH PROGRAM; MEDICAID; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EID: 66549086265     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00557.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bingefors K, Pashos CL, Smith MD, Berger ML. Health Care Cost, Quality, and Outcomes: ISPOR Book of Terms. Lawrenceville, NJ : International Society for Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2003.
2. Institute of Medicine. Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington, DC : National Academy Press, 1985.
3. National Coordinating Centre for HTA. Annual Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1998. London : Department of Health, 1998.
4. Kunkle GC. New challenge or the past revisited: the office of technology assessment in historical context. Technol Soc 1995 17 : 175 96.
5. Kaiser Family Foundation. Health care costs: a primer. Available from: http://www.kff.org. [Accessed May 4, 2008 PJ, Divi N, Beinfeld MT, et al. Medicare's national coverage decisions, 1999-2003: quality of evidence and review times. Health Aff 2005 24 : 243 54.
6. Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. New Engl J Med 2005 353 : 1516 22.
7. Gibson M, Santa J. The drug effectiveness review project: an important step forward. Health Aff 2006 26 : w272 5.
8. Neumann PJ. Emerging lessons from the drug effectiveness review project. Health Aff 2006 25 : w262 71.
9. Steinberg EP, Luce BR. Evidence-based? Caveat emptor! Health Aff 2005 24 : 80 92.
10. Gray BH, Gusmano MK, Collins SR. AHRQ and the changing politics of health services research. Health Aff 2003 22 : w283 307.
11. Wilensky GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff 2006 25 : w572 85.
12. Ridderhof K, Remund D. The department of defense pharmacy benefit management program. Mil Med 2005 170 : 302 4.
13. Watkins JB, Choudhury SR, Wong E, Sullivan SD. Managing biotechnology in a network-model health plan: a U.S. private payer perspective. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006 25 : 1347 52. A process flow chart of this plan's HTA process for pharmaceuticals is included as an electronic exhibit at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5/1347/DC1 [Accessed November 17, 2007, 7:00 PM PST SD, Lyles A, Luce BR, Grigar J. AMCP guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in US health plans and pharmacy benefits management organizations. J Manag Care Pharm 2001 7 : 272 82.
14. Neumann PJ, Claxton K, Weinstein MC. The FDA's regulation of health economic information. Health Aff 2000 19 : 129 37.
15. Colmenero F, Sullivan SD, Palmer JA, et al. Quality of clinical and economic evidence in dossier formulary submissions. Am J Manag Care 2007 13 : 401 7.
16. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't: it's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. BMJ 1996 312 : 71 2.
17. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's "coverage with evidence development Health Aff 2006 251218 : 30.
18. Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD. Evidence, economics, and emphysema: medicare's long journey with lung volume reduction surgery. Health Aff 2005 24 : 55 66. (Pubitemid 40169774)