An extension of the real option approach to the evaluation of health care technologies: The case of positron emission tomography

International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 317-332

  Pertile, Paolo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Positron emission tomography; Real options

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 67849106731     PISSN: 13896563     EISSN: 15736962     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10754-008-9053-z     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Barone-Adesi G., Whaley R. (1986) Efficient analytic approximation of American option values. Journal of Finance 42: 301-320
2. Brandbury, I., Bonell, E., Boynton, J., Cummins, E., Facey, K., Iqbal, K., et al. (2002). Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health Technology Board for Scotland. Health Technology Assessment Report 2, Glasgow.
3. Claxton K. (1999) The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. Journal of Health Economics 18: 341-364
4. Dietlein M., Weber K., Gandjour A., Moka D., Theissen P., Lauterbach K., et al. (2000) Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of solitary pulmonary nodules: A decision analysis based on cost reimbursement in Germany. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 27(10): 1441-1456
5. Dixit A. (1994) The art of smooth pasting. Harwood Academic, Chur, Switzerland
6. Dixit A., Pindyck R. (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton
7. Driffield T., Smith P. (2007) A real options approach to watchful waiting: Theory and an illustration. Medical Decision Making 27: 178-188
8. Eckermann S., Willan A. (2007) Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Economics 16: 195-209
9. Eckermann, S., & Willan, A. (2008). Globally optimal trial design for local decision making. Health Economics, Online early. doi: 10.1002/ hec.1353.
10. Gambhir S., Czernin J., Schwimmer J., Silverman D., Coleman R., Phelps M. (2001) A tabulated summary of the FDG-PET literature. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 42: 1S-93S
11. Huisman K. (2001) Technology investment: A game theoretic real option approach. Kluwer, Dodrecht, The Netherlands
12. ICES. (2004). Health technology assessment of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology-a systematic review. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
13. Klose T., Leidl R., Buchmann I., Brambs H., Reske S. (2000) Primary staging of lymphomas: Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET versus computed tomography. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 27(10): 1457-1464
14. Lasserre P., Moatti J., Soubeyran A. (2006) Early initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapies for AIDS: Dynamic choice with endogenous and exogenous learning. Journal of Health Economics 25: 579-598
15. Müller A., Stratmann-Schöne D., Klose T., Leidl R. (2002) Overview of economic evaluation of Positron-Emission Tomography. European Journal of Health Economics 3(1): 59-65
16. Palmer S., Smith P. (2000) Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. Journal of Health Economics 19(5): 755-766
17. Robert, G., & Milne, R. (1999). Positron emission tomography: Establishing priorities for health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment, 3(16).
18. Schwartz E., Trigeorgis L. (2001) Real options and investment under uncertainty: Classical readings and recent contributions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA