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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23217275)

  • 1. Relationship between financial impact and coverage of drugs in Australia.
    Mauskopf J; Chirila C; Masaquel C; Boye KS; Bowman L; Birt J; Grainger D
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2013 Jan; 29(1):92-100. PubMed ID: 23217275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Analysis of PBAC submissions and outcomes for medicines (2010-2018).
    Lybrand S; Wonder M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Jun; 36(3):224-231. PubMed ID: 32524923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Assessment of the Quality of the Clinical Evidence in Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Fit for Purpose?
    Wonder M; Dunlop S
    Value Health; 2015 Jun; 18(4):467-76. PubMed ID: 26091601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Factors associated with Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee decisions for listing medicines for diabetes and its associated complications.
    Haque MM; Gumbie M; Gu M; Dissanayake G
    Aust Health Rev; 2023 Apr; 47(2):139-147. PubMed ID: 36543249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and implications for paediatric prescribing.
    Sinha Y; Brien JA; Craig JC
    J Paediatr Child Health; 2009 Jun; 45(6):351-7. PubMed ID: 19490409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee.
    Kim H; Byrnes J; Goodall S;
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2021 May; 24():6-11. PubMed ID: 33429153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
    Carter D; Vogan A; Haji Ali Afzali H
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Aug; 14(4):401-407. PubMed ID: 26818196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002-4.
    Scuffham PA; Whitty JA; Mitchell A; Viney R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2008; 26(4):297-310. PubMed ID: 18370565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. What impact does 'conventional' economic evaluation have on patient access to new orphan medicines? A comparative study of their reimbursement in Australia (2005-2012).
    Wonder M; Chin G
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 15(5):843-50. PubMed ID: 25938794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The Impact of Digital Therapeutics on Current Health Technology Assessment Frameworks.
    Yan K; Balijepalli C; Druyts E
    Front Digit Health; 2021; 3():667016. PubMed ID: 34713140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.