The pros and cons of essential medicines for rich countries

BMJ

Volumn 329, Issue 7475, 2004, Pages 1172-

  Reidenberg, marcus M ^a   Walley, Tom ^b  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESSENTIAL DRUG; ETANERCEPT; IBUPROFEN; LEFLUNOMIDE; METHOTREXATE;

AUSTRALIA; DRUG FORMULARY; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG MARKETING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INDUSTRIALIZATION; INFLAMMATION; NOTE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 8744280236     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7475.1172     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Hogerzeil HV. The concept of essential medicines: lessons for rich countries. BMJ 2004; 329: 1169–1172.
2. Australian Government. Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical benefits scheme expenditures and prescriptions. www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/Statistics-1 (accessed 26 October 2004).
3. Drahos P, Henry D. The free trade agreement between Australia and the United States. BMJ 2004; 328: 1271–1272.
4. Kremer JM. Rational use of new and existing disease-modifying agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 695–706.
5. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998; 317: 465–468.