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)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments.
    Appiah K; Rizzo M; Sarri G; Hernandez L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2024 Feb; 13(2):e230140. PubMed ID: 38174576
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
    Tirrell Z; Norman A; Hoyle M; Lybrand S; Parkinson B
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2024 Nov; 42(11):1287-1300. PubMed ID: 39182009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Revisiting financial conflicts of interest in FDA advisory committees.
    Pham-Kanter G
    Milbank Q; 2014 Sep; 92(3):446-70. PubMed ID: 25199895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.
    Ghijben P; Gu Y; Lancsar E; Zavarsek S
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Mar; 36(3):323-340. PubMed ID: 29124632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries?
    Scott AM
    Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. The Australian model of immunization advice and vaccine funding.
    Nolan TM
    Vaccine; 2010 Apr; 28 Suppl 1():A76-83. PubMed ID: 20413003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Transparency in pricing arrangements for medicines listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
    Robertson J; Walkom EJ; Henry DA
    Aust Health Rev; 2009 May; 33(2):192-9. PubMed ID: 19563308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy.
    O'Malley SP; Jordan E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(2):286-91. PubMed ID: 17493316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia.
    Lopes E; Carter D; Street J
    Soc Sci Med; 2015 Jun; 135():84-91. PubMed ID: 25950114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Early scientific advice obtained simultaneously from regulators and payers: findings from a pilot study in Australia.
    Wonder M; Backhouse ME; Hornby E
    Value Health; 2013; 16(6):1067-73. PubMed ID: 24041357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.