This paper aims to initiate a dialog among readers regarding the positioning and promotion of health-related decision analysis in the public sector. It is motivated by the author's personal observations that quantitative and economic evaluation methods continue to be viewed with skepticism by some public officials and that no consensus exists within our community as to what an appropriate message to such decision makers might be. A personal view of some key themes to be stressed in defining a vision for the field is presented. Key words: decision analysis; cost-effectiveness; policy. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:239-242)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1995 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Activities Report. San Francisco, CA. Zitter Group and Technology Assessment Group, Inc. 1995.
2.
Association for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.A survey of pharmacoeconomic research in the United States. APOR News. 1996;2, Sept-Oct.1.
3.
Health Economics in the USA: Expectations, Applications and Future Directions. Plymouth Meeting, PA IMS America Ltd ., 1996.
4.
Stemeroff M, Gagnon JP, Goulli NE.The evolving structure of health economics. Scrip Magazine . 1997;March:37-9.
5.
Andersson F.Why is the pharmaceutical industry investing increasing amounts in health economic evaluations?Int J Technol Assess Health Care1995,11:750-61.
6.
What do you consider an ideal training for the practitioner of pharmacoeconomic research?ISPOR News. 1999;5:1
7.
Draugalis JR.Updating skills. pharmacoeconomics as continuing educationTop Hosp Pharm Manage.1994;13:72-6
8.
Gregor KJ, Draugalis JR.Graduate pharmacoeconomic education and training programs in U S. colleges of pharmacyAm J Pharmaceutical Education1994;58:378-81.
9.
Stewart A, Schmier MA, Luce BRA survey of standards and guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis in health careAm Heart J1999;137:S53-S61
10.
Langley PCThe November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticalsPharmacoEconomics. 1996;9:341-52
11.
Department of Human Services and Health Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory CommitteeCanberra, Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995
12.
Garattini A, Grilli R, Scopellitti D, Mantovani LA proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomicsPharmacoEconomics. 1995 ;7:1-6
13.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment.Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals : Canada 2nd Edition. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: CCOHTA, 1997.
14.
Detsky ASGuidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. a draft document for Ontario and Canada. PharmacoEconomics. 1993,3:354-61.
15.
Temple R, O'Neill R.Principles for the Review of Pharmacoeconomic Promotion. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertizing, and Communications, 1995.
16.
Mackay S.The governor's budget: how Almond's budget will affect state agencies. The Providence Journal-Bulletin. February 16, 1996:13a.
17.
Sundquist plans Tenncare cuts. The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN) December 1, 1999:A1
18.
Fletcher A.Colorado lawmakers say Medicare rules hurt some beneficiaries. The Gazette (Colorado Springs) March 21, 1999
19.
Ezzard MGuarding Medicaid dollars: State nursing home industry shortsighted on elderly's needsThe Atlanta Journal and Constitution March 10, 1997
20.
Babington C.Clinton moves to undo some Medicare compensation cuts. The Washington Post . October 20, 1999:A08.
21.
United States Congress.Public Law105-33.
22.
United States Congress Public Law106-113
23.
Tengs TO, Graham JD.The opportunity costs of haphazard societal investments in life-saving . In Hahn R (ed). Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996 .
24.
Luce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM.The view from managed care pharmacyHealth Aff, 1996;15:1-9.
25.
Langley PC, Martin RE.Guidelines for Formulary Submissions RanchoCordova, CA: Integrated Pharmaceutical Services and Foundation Health Corporation, 1996.
26.
Methodological and Conduct Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Research . Washington, DC, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), 1995.
27.
House bill requires analysis of cost of rules. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. July 27, 1999:9.
28.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC.Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Report of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and MedicineNew York. Oxford University Press , 1996.
