These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
510 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19809025)
1. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. Clement FM; Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K; Lee KM; Manns BJ JAMA; 2009 Oct; 302(13):1437-43. PubMed ID: 19809025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia. Karikios DJ; Chim L; Martin A; Nagrial A; Howard K; Salkeld G; Stockler MR Intern Med J; 2017 Apr; 47(4):400-407. PubMed ID: 27928875 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Lexchin J; Mintzes B Am J Manag Care; 2008 Sep; 14(9):581-8. PubMed ID: 18778173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea. Bae G; Bae EY; Bae S Health Policy; 2015 May; 119(5):577-87. PubMed ID: 25666339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Chim L; Kelly PJ; Salkeld G; Stockler MR Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(6):463-75. PubMed ID: 20465315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions. Spinner DS; Birt J; Walter JW; Bowman L; Mauskopf J; Drummond MF; Copley-Merriman C Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2013; 5():69-85. PubMed ID: 23403392 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand. McCormick JI; Berescu LD; Tadros N Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 Jan; 13(1):27. PubMed ID: 29382371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Harris AH; Hill SR; Chin G; Li JJ; Walkom E Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):713-22. PubMed ID: 18378939 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Key considerations in reimbursement decision-making for multiple sclerosis drugs in Australia. Phan YHL; De Abreu Lourenco R; Haas M; van der Linden N Mult Scler Relat Disord; 2018 Oct; 25():144-149. PubMed ID: 30077086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia. Ball G; Levine MAH; Thabane L; Tarride JE Curr Oncol; 2022 Oct; 29(10):7624-7636. PubMed ID: 36290879 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions. Wong CKH; Wu O; Cheung BMY Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2018 Feb; 16(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 28702874 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparing the ICERs in Medicine Reimbursement Submissions to NICE and PBAC-Does the Presence of an Explicit Threshold Affect the ICER Proposed? Wang S; Gum D; Merlin T Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):938-943. PubMed ID: 30098671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland. Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessment of Coverage in England of Cancer Drugs Qualifying for US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval. Cherla A; Naci H; Kesselheim AS; Gyawali B; Mossialos E JAMA Intern Med; 2021 Apr; 181(4):490-498. PubMed ID: 33616607 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Morgan SG; McMahon M; Mitton C; Roughead E; Kirk R; Kanavos P; Menon D Health Aff (Millwood); 2006; 25(2):337-47. PubMed ID: 16522575 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia. Fischer KE; Heisser T; Stargardt T Health Policy; 2016 Oct; 120(10):1115-1122. PubMed ID: 27628196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in australia (1991 to 1996). George B; Harris A; Mitchell A Pharmacoeconomics; 2001; 19(11):1103-9. PubMed ID: 11735677 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA. Turkstra E; Bettington E; Donohue ML; Mervin MC Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(4):521-528. PubMed ID: 28703092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Henry D Pharmacoeconomics; 1992 Jan; 1(1):54-67. PubMed ID: 10147039 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]