Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong?

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2009, Pages

  Menon, Devidas ^a   Stafinski, Tania ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; HTA and decision making

Indexed keywords

BUDGET; CANADA; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLITICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

EID: 66549105356     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00554.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Health Canada. Health care system. 2007. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/index-e.html#skipall [Accessed April 15, 2009].
2. Menon D, Topfer L. Health technology assessment in Canada - a decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 16 : 896 902.
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Health technology assessment process. 2006. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/ programs/health-technology-assessment/process [Accessed April 15, 2009 R, Levin L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework - an integral part of Ontario's HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 : 1143 56.
4. Borowski HZ, Brehault J, Hailey D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: the Alberta Model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 23 : 156 61.
5. McGill University. Technology Assessment Unit of the MUHC. 2007. Available from: http://www.mcgill.ca/tau/ [Accessed April 15, 2009].
6. Canadian Taskforce on Preventive Medicine. Evidence based clinical prevention. 2005. Available from: http://www.ctfphc.org/index2.htm [Accessed April 15, 2009].
7. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guide to the medical literature IX: a method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995 274 : 1800 4.
8. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. 2006. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf [Accessed April 15, 2009 R, McGregor M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997 13 : 68 80.
9. Battista RN, Feeny DH, Hodge M. Evaluation of the Canadian coordinating office of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995 11 : 102 16.
10. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. An Exploratory Review of Evaluations of Health Technology Assessment Agencies. Edmonton AB : Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, 2006.
11. Government of Canada. Building on values. The future of health care in Canada: final report, commission on the future of health care in Canada. 2002. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0086.html [Accessed April 15, 2009 D, Stafinski T. Priority-setting for healthcare: who, how, and is it fair Health Policy 2007 84 : 220 33. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol. 2007.05.009.
12. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of different practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 23 : 310 15.
13. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin F-P. Bringing "the public" into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy 2007 82 : 37 50. (Pubitemid 46610527)
14. Stafinski T, Menon D. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect 2008 11 : 282 93.
15. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Recommendations for establishing a Citizens' Council to guide drug policy in Ontario. 2006. Available from: http://www.ices.on.ca/file/CitizensCounciReport-Nov-06.pdf [Accessed April 15, 2009].
16. Laupacis A. Economic evaluation in the Canadian Common Drug Review. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 : 1157 62.
17. Siebert M, Clauss LC, Carlisle M, et al. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002 18 : 733 40.
18. Stafinski T, Menon D, Harris K, et al. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Can Urol Assoc J 2008 2 : E1 25.
19. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Energy delivery systems for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Health technology policy assessment. 2006. Available from: http://health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/ program/ohtac/tech/recommend/rec-bph-081806.pdf [Accessed April 15, 2009 D, Stafinski T, Cicchetti A, et al. Determining the value of new technologies - ongoing development of a survey questionnaire Abstract), presented at the 5th Annual Conference, Health Technology Assessment International, Montreal, 6-8 July 2008.
20. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Ontario health technology advisory committee - field evaluations. 2007. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/field-eval.html [Accessed April 15, 2009 SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: medicare's "coverage with evidence development." Health Aff 2006 25 : 1218 30.
21. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CCOHTA's Health Technology Inquiry Service. 2005. Available from: http://cadth.ca/index.php/en/ hta/program/htis [Accessed April 15, 2009 J-P, MacNeill P, Skilton K, et al. Interprovincial variations in government drug formularies. Can J Public Health 2001 92 : 307 11.
22. Menon D, Stafinski T, Stuart G. Access to drugs for cancer: does where you live matter? Can J Public Health 2005 96 : 454 8.
23. Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, Miller E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision making. To lambda and beyond. Value Health 2008 11 : 771 83.
24. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Policy forum. 2007. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cadth/corporate-profile/forum [Accessed April 15, 2009 A, Ibbott P. How parallel trade affects drug policies and prices in Canada and the United States. Am J Law Med 2006 32 : 193 217.
25. Schneeweis S. Reference drug programs: effectiveness and policy implications. Health Policy 2007 81 : 17 28.
26. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can J Public Health 1992 146 : 473 81.
27. Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? Can Med Assoc J 2002 166 : 44 7.
28. Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006 62 : 2091 100.