Office of Technology Assessment, U S. Congress.Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technology U S Government Printing Office, 1978
2.
Office of Technology Assessment, U S. Congress.The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology. U.S Government Printing Office, 1980.
3.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MCCost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New YorkOxford University Press, 1996.
4.
Warner K., Hutton R.Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in health care growth and composition of the literature. Med Care.1980;18:1069.
5.
Elixhauser A. , Luce BR, Taylor W., Reblando J.Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis from 1979 to 1990: a bibliographyMed Care. 1993;31:7 Suppl.
6.
Manning WG, et al Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds) Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine, New York. Oxford University Press, 1996.
7.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals. Report Series, 1982-1984. Washington, DC.
8.
Gewecke J., Weisbrod B.Clinical evaluation vs economic evaluation : the case of a new drugMed Care. 1982;20:821-30
9.
Croog SH, Levine S., Testa MA, et al The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life . N Engl J Med1986; 3141657-64.
10.
Kassira JP, Angell H.The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analysis (editorial. N Engl J Med1995,332123-5.
11.
Elixhauser A., Halpern M., Schmier J., Luce BRHealth Care Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from 1991 to 1996An Updated Bibhography Med Care . 1998, in press.
12.
Oster G., Borok GM, Menzin J., et al Cholesterol-Reduction Intervention Study (CRIS) a randomized trial to assess effectiveness and costs in clinical practice. Arch Intern Med.1996;156731-9
13.
Simon GE, VonKorff M., Heiligenstein JH, et al. Initial antidepressant choice in primary care: effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs. tricyclic antidepressants. JAMA1996,275:1897-902.
14.
Revicki DA, Luce BRMethods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new medical treatments in psychiatry . Psychopharmacol Bull1995,33-57-65.
15.
Luce BR, Lyles AC, Rentz AMThe view from managed care pharmacy where managed care pharmacy directors stand on the use of cost-effectiveness information, disease management programs, and regulation of pharmacoeconomic claims. Health Aff.1966;15:168-76
16.
Lyles A., Luce BR, Rentz AM Managed care pharmacy socioeconomic assessment and drug adoption decisions. Soc Sci Med.1997,45.511-21.
17.
Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Das A.The review process used by U.S. health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage. J Gen Intern Med.1996;11:294-302.
18.
Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GFCoverage decisions for medical technology by managed care relationship to organizational and physician payment characteristics. Am J Managed Care1996;2:1321-31
19.
Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Das A.Technology coverage decisions by health care plans and considerations by medical directors. Med Care.1997;35:472-89
20.
Luce BR, Brown R.The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.1995;1:1, 79-92
21.
Rettig RAHealth Care in Transition: Technology Assessment in the Private Sector. Report to Department of Health and Human Services/Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation/ Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, March 1995.
22.
The Task Force for Medical Technology Assessment. University of Washington in Seattle, March 1997
23.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Program on the Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology. Meeting entitled The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Managed Care Decision Making, Boston, MA, April 1997.
24.
Duke University Clinical Research Institute.Meeting entitled Economics and Cost Effectiveness in Evaluating the Value of Cardiovascular Therapies, St. Petersburg, FL, April 1997.
25.
Association of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (APOR).Second annual meeting, entitled Decision -Making in Health CarePhiladelphia, PA, April 1997.
26.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology AssessmentGuidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals . 1st ed. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
27.
Commonwealth of Australia Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; Including Submissions Involving Economic Analysis Canberra, Australia: Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
28.
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles . Ann Intern Med. 1995;12361-70.
29.
Foundation Health Corporation and Integrated Pharmaceutical Services, 3400 Data Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 85670. Guidelines for Formulary Submissions, October 1996.
30.
Regence Washington Health Pharmacy Services. Guidelines for the Submission of Clinical and Economic Data Supporting Formulary Consideration. Regence Washington Health, University of Washington, Version 1.2, September 1997.
31.
Food and Drug Administration 1995(a). Draft Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Claims. Bethesda, MD, 1995.
32.
Mandelblatt JS , Fryback DG, Weinstein MC, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions In Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health and MedicineNew YorkOxford University Press, 1996.
33.
Food and Drug Administration.March, 1995(b). Conference entitled Safety, Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness . Bethesda, MD, 1995.
34.
Food and Drug Administration Hearing.Pharmaceutical Marketing and Information Exchange in Managed Care Environments Regulating Pharmacoeconomic Claims. Bethesda, MD, October 1996.
35.
Luce BR, Hillman ALWhen is a cost-effectiveness claim valid? How much should the FDA care? Am J Managed Care.1997;3.1660-6.
36.
Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Paltiel ADThe FDA and regulating cost-effectiveness claimsHealth Aff.1996,15:54-71.
37.
Public Law 105-89, Section 114, Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997.