BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37121246)

  • 1. Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States.
    Westrich K; Hydery T; Dharbhamalla V; Buelt L; Zheng C; Loo V; Graff J
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2023 May; 29(5):582-588. PubMed ID: 37121246
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.
    Oderda G; Brixner D; Biskupiak J; Burgoyne D; Arondekar B; Deal LS; Quek RG; Niyazov A
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2022 Feb; 28(2):188-195. PubMed ID: 34806908
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Payer perceptions of the use of real-world evidence in oncology-based decision making.
    Brixner D; Biskupiak J; Oderda G; Burgoyne D; Malone DC; Arondekar B; Niyazov A
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2021 Aug; 27(8):1096-1105. PubMed ID: 34337998
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Payer perceptions on the use of economic models in oncology decision making.
    Biskupiak J; Oderda G; Brixner D; Burgoyne D; Arondekar B; Niyazov A
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2021 Nov; 27(11):1560-1567. PubMed ID: 34714111
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Payer Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Health Care Decision Making: Oncology Examples.
    Brogan AP; DeMuro C; Barrett AM; D'Alessio D; Bal V; Hogue SL
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2017 Feb; 23(2):125-134. PubMed ID: 28125369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Understanding Payer Perspectives on Value in the Use of Pharmaceuticals in the United States.
    Brogan AP; Hogue SL; Vekaria RM; Reynolds I; Coukell A
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2019 Dec; 25(12):1319-1327. PubMed ID: 31778613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Current Status of Outcomes-Based Contracting for Manufacturers and Payers: An AMCP Membership Survey.
    Duhig AM; Saha S; Smith S; Kaufman S; Hughes J
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2018 May; 24(5):410-415. PubMed ID: 29337604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Value Tools in Managed Care Decision Making: Current Hurdles and Future Opportunities.
    Schafer J; Galante D; Shafrin J
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2017 Jun; 23(6-a Suppl):S21-S27. PubMed ID: 28535106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Drug Treatment Value in a Changing Oncology Landscape: A Literature and Provider Perspective.
    Frois C; Howe A; Jarvis J; Grice K; Wong K; Zacker C; Sasane R
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2019 Feb; 25(2):246-259. PubMed ID: 30698093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Why Value Framework Assessments Arrive at Different Conclusions: A Multiple Myeloma Case Study.
    Westrich K; Buelt L; Dubois RW
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2017 Jun; 23(6-a Suppl):S28-S33. PubMed ID: 28535102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The evolution of payer management of oncology drugs in the United States between 2017 and 2022.
    Runyan A; Yi J; Honcz J
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2023 Oct; 29(10):1138-1149. PubMed ID: 37695273
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Current and Future Oncology Management in the United States.
    Runyan A; Banks J; Bruni DS
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2019 Feb; 25(2):272-281. PubMed ID: 30698085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A Survey of Payer Perspectives on Cannabis Use Disorder.
    Kiselica AM; Duhig A; Montoya I; Skolnick P; Floyd J; Byars C
    Subst Use Misuse; 2018 Nov; 53(13):2257-2264. PubMed ID: 29927691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
    Moloney R; Mohr P; Hawe E; Shah K; Garau M; Towse A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(1-2):90-8. PubMed ID: 26168804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Methodology for conducting a comprehensive product review in managed care.
    Linnerooth S; Penley B; Sauvageau G; Ha J; Beal A; Craven J; Feeney E; Taddei-Allen P; Thomas N; Watkins J; Hydery T
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2023 Mar; 29(3):237-243. PubMed ID: 36840955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of Stakeholder Engagement in the Public Comments of ICER Draft Evidence Reports.
    Gerlach JA; Snow B; Prioli KM; Vertsman R; Patterson J; Pizzi LT
    Am Health Drug Benefits; 2020 Sep; 13(4):136-142. PubMed ID: 33343812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Health technology assessment and private payers' coverage of personalized medicine.
    Trosman JR; Van Bebber SL; Phillips KA
    J Oncol Pract; 2011 May; 7(3 Suppl):18s-24s. PubMed ID: 21886515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Strengthening Multipayer Collaboration: Lessons From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.
    Anglin G; Tu HA; Liao K; Sessums L; Taylor EF
    Milbank Q; 2017 Sep; 95(3):602-633. PubMed ID: 28895218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.