154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25666339)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond.
Rocchi A; Menon D; Verma S; Miller E
Value Health; 2008; 11(4):771-83. PubMed ID: 18179658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Evaluation on the first 2 years of the positive list system in South Korea.
Park SE; Lim SH; Choi HW; Lee SM; Kim DW; Yim EY; Kim KH; Yi SY
Health Policy; 2012 Jan; 104(1):32-9. PubMed ID: 22001369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada.
Yong JH; Beca J; Hoch JS
Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Mar; 31(3):229-36. PubMed ID: 23322588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Are Australians able to access new medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in a more or less timely manner? An analysis of pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee recommendations, 1999-2003.
Wonder MJ; Neville AM; Parsons R
Value Health; 2006; 9(4):205-12. PubMed ID: 16903989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada.
Meyers DE; Jenei K; Chisamore TM; Gyawali B
JAMA Intern Med; 2021 Apr; 181(4):499-508. PubMed ID: 33616606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Twenty years of using economic evaluations for drug reimbursement decisions: what has been achieved?
Drummond M
J Health Polit Policy Law; 2013 Dec; 38(6):1081-102. PubMed ID: 23974475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions.
Anis AH; Rahman T; Schechter MT
Pharmacoeconomics; 1998 Jan; 13(1 Pt 2):119-26. PubMed ID: 10176146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries.
Barnieh L; Manns B; Harris A; Blom M; Donaldson C; Klarenbach S; Husereau D; Lorenzetti D; Clement F
Value Health; 2014; 17(1):98-108. PubMed ID: 24438723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluations submitted for reimbursement in Korea.
Yim EY; Lim SH; Oh MJ; Park HK; Gong JR; Park SE; Yi SY
Value Health; 2012; 15(1 Suppl):S104-10. PubMed ID: 22265055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A comparison of pharmaceutical reimbursement agencies' processes and methods in France and Scotland.
Bending M; Hutton J; McGrath C
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Apr; 28(2):187-94. PubMed ID: 22559763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
