Disclaimer: The contents of this article reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily those of AstraZeneca.
Health Economic Guidelines—Similarities, Differences and Some Implications
Version of Record online: 23 DEC 2001
Value in Health
Volume 4, Issue 3, pages 225–250, May/June 2001
How to Cite
Hjelmgren, J., Berggren, F. and Andersson, F. (2001), Health Economic Guidelines—Similarities, Differences and Some Implications. Value in Health, 4: 225–250. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.43040.x
- Issue online: 23 DEC 2001
- Version of Record online: 23 DEC 2001
- 1Australian Commonwealth Department of Health Housing, Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Government Publication, 1992.
- 2Australian Commonwealth Department of Health Housing, Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department, 1995.
- 3Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1994.
- 4Finish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Guidelines for Reparation of an Account of Health Economic Aspects. Helsinki: Finish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 1999.
- 5Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondraad), 1999..
- 6The Portuguese Pharmacy and Medicines Institute. Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies on Drugs. Lisbon: INFARMED, 1998.
- 7Guidelines for the Submission of Clinical and Economic Data Supporting Formulary Consideration (Version 1.2). Seattle, WA: Regence Washington Health—University of Washington, 1997..
- 10National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Revised Guidelines for Manufacturers, Sponsors of Technologies Making Submissions to the Institute. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk.
- 11Economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals (in Danish: Sundhedskonomiske evalueringer af lægemidler). Copenhagen: Schultz, 1995., , , et al.
- 12National Center for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland. Irish Healthcare Technology Assessment Guidelines (Draft Version 2). Dublin: National Center for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland, 1999.
- 13Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited. A Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis (Version 1). Wellington, NZ: The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited (PHARMAC), 1999.
- 14Norwegian Medicines Control Authority. The Norwegian Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in Connection with Application for Reimbursement. Oslo: Norwegian Medicines Control Authority Department of Pharmacoeconomics, 1999.
- 16Principles for Review of Pharmacoeconomic Promotion (draft). Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1995.& .
- 17Gricar JA, Langley PC, Luce B, et al. AMCP's Format for Formulary Submissions: A Format for Submissions of Clinical and Economic Evaluation Data in Support of Formulary Consideration by Managed Health Care Systems in the United States. Alexandria, VA. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), 2000. Available from http://www.amcp.org/public/formulary/sub/.
- 18Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung. Swiss Manual for the Standardization of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology (second draft). Bern: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung, 1995.
- 19Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. A Proposal for Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Brussels: Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (BESPE), 1995.
- 20Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals (2nd edn.). Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 1997.
- 21Collège des Economistes de la Santé. Guidelines and Recommendations for French Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Paris: Collège des Economistes de la Santé (CES), 1997.
- 23General Directorate of Services and Evaluation of Health Technologies and the General Directorate of Insurance and Health Planning of the Ministry of Health and Consumption. Proposal for Standardization of Some Methodological Aspects of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (CEA), Cost-Utility Analyses (CUA), and Cost-Minimization Analyses (CMA) in the Evaluating of Health Technologies and Programs. Madrid: General Directorate of Services and Evaluation of Health Technologies and the General Directorate of Insurance and Health Planning of the Ministry of Health and Consumption, 1994.
- 25Graf vd Shulenberg J-M. Hanover Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Health Services (in German: Hanover Guidelines für die ökonomische Evaluation von Gesundheitsgütern und -dienstleistungen). Hanover: Institut für Versicherungsbetriebs-lehre, Diskussionspapier Nr. 10, January 1995. Die Pharmazeutische Industrie 1995;57:265–8.
- 26Government/Pharmaceutical Industry Working Party. UK guidance on good practice in the conduct of economic evaluations of medicines. Br J Med Ec 1994;7:63–4.
- 28Methodological and Conduct Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), 1995..
- 29Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:61–70.
- 31Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996., , , et al.
- 32Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997., , , et al.
- 34Cost-effectiveness evaluation in health care: initiative for a standardized methodology. Managed Care Med 1995;2:25–33.& .
- 36Review of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies and positions. Drug Information Journal 1996;30:1003–16.& .
- 43NICE rejects Glaxo Wellcome appeal against Relenza NHS ban. Pharmaceut J 1999; 263:56..
- 45Schuchman M. Drug firm threatens suit over MD's product review. Toronto Globe and Mail, November 17, 1999.
- 46Wilkingson M. Cut-price medicine put at risk. Sydney Morning Herald, December 1,1999.