This paper covers the policy implications of modeling in cost-effectiveness analysis. Concerns about bias potential and validity are addressed. An historical perspective of cost-effectiveness analysis is provided. Cost-effectiveness modeling in the 1990s is covered, and future directions are outlined.
KassirerJPAngellM.The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses (editorial). N Engl J Med.1995;12;332(2):123–125.
2.
HillmanA.A sounding board: avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med.1991;324:1362–1365.
3.
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology.Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Int Med.1995;122:60–69.
4.
Food and Drug Administration.Principals for the review of pharmacoeconomic promotion — draft. Rockville, Maryland; 1995 (Draft).
5.
DrummondMBrandtALuceBRRoviraJ.Standardizing economic evaluation methodologies in health care. Int J Tech Assess Health Care.1993;9(1):26–36.
6.
ElixhauserALuceBRTaylorWReblandoJ.Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis from 1979 to 1990: a bibliography. Med Care Suppl.1993;31(7).
7.
StasonWWeinsteinM.Allocation of resources to manage hypertension. New Engl J Med.1977;296:732–739.
8.
WeinsteinMStasonW.Foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med.1977;296:716–721.
9.
Office of Technology Assessment.Update of federal activities regarding the use of pneumococcal vaccine. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1984.
10.
WillemsJSandersCRiddoughM.Cost effectiveness of vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia. N Engl J Med.1980;303:553–559.
11.
EddyD.Screening for cancer; theory, analysis, and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
12.
FioreMNovotnyTPierceJBiovinoGHatziandreuEMethods used to quit smoking in the United States: do cessation programs help?JAMA.1990;263:2760–2765.
13.
WhiteCCKaplanLPOrensteinWA. Benefits, risks and costs of immunization for measles, mumps and rubella. Am J Pub Health.1985;75(7):739–744.
14.
Public Health Focus: Effectiveness of smoking-control strategies. In: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1992; Sep 4;41(35):645–647, 653.
15.
RosenquistCJLindforsKK. Screening mammography in women aged 40-49 years: analysis of cost-effectiveness. Radiology.1994(June); 191(3):647–650.
16.
ElixhauserAWeschlerJMKitzmillerJLMarksJSBennertHWJr.CoustanDRGabbeSGHermanWHKaufmannRCOgataESCost-benefit analysis of preconception care for women with established diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care.1993(Aug);16(8):1146–1157.
17.
RothmanMEhrethJPalmerCCollinsJReblandoJLuceB.The potential benefits and costs of a comprehensive school health education program. Submitted for publication.
18.
DrummondMHeyseJCookJMcGuireA.Selection of endpoints in economic evaluations for Coronary-heart-disease Interventions. Med Decis Making.1993;13:184–190.
19.
GeweckeJWeisbrodB.Clinical evaluation vs. economic evaluation: the case of a new drug. Med Care.1982;20:821–830.
20.
de LissovoyGElixhauserALuceBWeschlerJMoweryPReblandoJSolomkinJ.Cost analysis of imipenem-cilastatin versus clindamycin with tobramycin in the treatment of acute intra-abdominal infection. Pharmacoecon.1993;4(3):203–214.
21.
LuceB.Cost-effectiveness analysis — obstacles to standardization and its use in regulating pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoecon.1993;3(1):1–9.
22.
Steering Committee on the Artificial Heart: Planning for Evolving Technologies, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health; 1994.
23.
GlickHKinosianB.Evaluating the efficiency of cholesterol modification for coronary heart disease with decision analytic models: A case study. Drug Inf J.1995;29(4).
24.
PhillipsLD. Bayesian statistics for social scientists. New York: Thomas E Cromwell Co.; 1973.
25.
BrophyJMJosephL.Placing trials in context using bayesian analysis: GUSTO Revisited by Reverend Bayes. JAMA.1995;273(11):871–875.
26.
LuceBSimpsonK.Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Clin Ther.1995;17(1):263–280.
