IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v77y2006i3p339-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Common Drug Review: A NICE start for Canada?

Author

Listed:
  • McMahon, Meghan
  • Morgan, Steve
  • Mitton, Craig

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Mitton, Craig, 2006. "The Common Drug Review: A NICE start for Canada?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 339-351, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:77:y:2006:i:3:p:339-351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(05)00218-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 185-191, April.
    2. Evans, R.G. & Barer, M. & Morgan, S., 2000. "Health Economists Meet the Fourth Tempter: Drog Dependency and Scientific Discourse," Centre for Health Services and Policy Research 2000:16r, University of British Columbia - Centre for Health Services and Policy Research..
    3. John Hutton & Alan Maynard, 2000. "A nice challenge for health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 89-93, March.
    4. Maynard, Alan & McDaid, David, 2003. "Evaluating health interventions: exploiting the potential," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 215-226, February.
    5. Sassi, Franco, 2003. "Setting priorities for the evaluation of health interventions: when theory does not meet practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 141-154, February.
    6. Steve Morgan & Morris Barer & Robert Evans, 2000. "Health economists meet the fourth tempter: drug dependency and scientific discourse," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(8), pages 659-667, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    2. Armstrong, Kristy & Mitton, Craig & Carleton, Bruce & Shoveller, Jean, 2008. "Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 308-316, December.
    3. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    4. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    5. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    6. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2012. "Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: A comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 167-177.
    7. Kaltenthaler, Eva & Tappenden, Paul & Booth, Andrew & Akehurst, Ron, 2008. "Comparing methods for full versus single technology appraisal: A case study of docetaxel and paclitaxel for early breast cancer," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 389-400, September.
    8. Morris, Zoë Slote & Clarkson, Peter John, 2009. "Does social marketing provide a framework for changing healthcare practice?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 135-141, July.
    9. Gallego, Gisselle & Casey, Robert & Norman, Richard & Goodall, Stephen, 2011. "Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: A qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 152-158.
    10. Katharina E. Fischer & Björn Stollenwerk & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2013. "Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 1009-1025, November.
    11. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Bayoumi, Ahmed M., 2014. "Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 255-263.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2003. "Drug reimbursement in Finland--a case of explicit prioritising in special categories," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 169-177, November.
    2. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    4. Maynard, Alan & McDaid, David, 2003. "Evaluating health interventions: exploiting the potential," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 215-226, February.
    5. Paul Grootendorst, 2009. "Patents, Public-Private Partnerships or Prizes – How should we support pharmaceutical innovation?," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 250, McMaster University.
    6. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    7. Devlin, N., 2003. "Does NICE have a cost effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A discrete choice analysis," Working Papers 03/01, Department of Economics, City University London.
    8. Don Husereau & Anthony Culyer & Peter Neumann & Philip Jacobs, 2015. "How do Economic Evaluations Inform Health Policy Decisions for Treatment and Prevention in Canada and the United States?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 273-279, June.
    9. Rothgang, Heinz & Niebuhr, Dea & Wasem, Jürgen & Greß, Stefan, 2004. "Evidenzbasierte Bestimmung des Leistungskatalogs im Gesundheitswesen? Das Beispiel des englischen National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)," Working papers of the ZeS 02/2004, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    10. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    11. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Tanja Sinozic & Mete Basar Baypinar & Edward M. Bergman & Miklos Hornyak & Ferenc Kruzslicz & Attila Varga, 2015. "A Policy Research Method Case-Study: Generating and Extracting Evidence-based Policy Inferences from a large EC Framework Programme Project," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2015_04, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    13. Armstrong, Kristy & Mitton, Craig & Carleton, Bruce & Shoveller, Jean, 2008. "Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 308-316, December.
    14. John Yfantopoulos, 2008. "Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement reforms in Greece," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 87-97, February.
    15. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    16. Richard Grieve & John Cairns & Simon G. Thompson, 2010. "Improving costing methods in multicentre economic evaluation: the use of multiple imputation for unit costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 939-954, August.
    17. Hartz, Susanne & John, Jürgen, 2009. "Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 184-192, February.
    18. Maria Gabriella Melchiorre & Giovanni Lamura & Francesco Barbabella & on behalf of ICARE4EU Consortium, 2018. "eHealth for people with multimorbidity: Results from the ICARE4EU project and insights from the “10 e’s” by Gunther Eysenbach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Wolfgang Greiner, 2005. "Health economic evaluation of disease management programs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 191-196, September.
    20. Ben F M Wijnen & Bea Hemmen & Ans I E Bouman & Henk van de Meent & Ton Ambergen & Peter R G Brink & Henk A M Seelen & Silvia M A A Evers, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of an integrated 'fast track' rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients: A non-randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:77:y:2006:i:3:p:339-351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.