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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31072455)

  • 1. Analysis of sponsor hearings on health technology assessment decision making.
    Flowers M; Lybrand S; Wonder M
    Aust Health Rev; 2020 Apr; 44(2):258-262. PubMed ID: 31072455
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. Analysis of consumer comments into PBAC decision-making (2014-9).
    Tjeuw E; Wonder MJ
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2022 Feb; 38(1):e18. PubMed ID: 35115073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia.
    Robertson J; Walkom EJ; Bevan MD; Newby DA
    BMC Public Health; 2013 May; 13():489. PubMed ID: 23687910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
    Lopert R
    Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2009 Jul; 60():1-13. PubMed ID: 19639714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Delays in access to affordable medicines: putting policy into perspective.
    Pearce A; van Gool K; Haywood P; Haas M
    Aust Health Rev; 2012 Nov; 36(4):412-8. PubMed ID: 23062753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Is the quality of evidence in health technology assessment deteriorating over time? A case study on cancer drugs in Australia.
    Gao Y; Laka M; Merlin T
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 May; 39(1):e28. PubMed ID: 37198927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. How are Child-Specific Utility Instruments Used in Decision Making in Australia? A Review of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents.
    Bailey C; Dalziel K; Cronin P; Devlin N; Viney R;
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Feb; 40(2):157-182. PubMed ID: 34738210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Making recommendations to subsidize new health technologies in Australia: A qualitative study of decision-makers' perspectives on committee processes.
    Sellars M; Carter SM; Lancsar E; Howard K; Coast J
    Health Policy; 2024 Jan; 139():104963. PubMed ID: 38104371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.