Validation of modeled pharmacoeconomic claims in formulary submissions

References

• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions (V 3.1). Alexandria: AMCP, 2012
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Care and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium. Submission Guidance and Templates for Submission. Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2014
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Department of Health. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.4). Canberra: Australian Government, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Langley PC. Recent developments in the health technology assessment process. In: Fulda TR, Wertheimer AI, eds. Handbook of pharmaceutical public policy. New York: Pharmaceutical Products Press, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Sweet B, Tadlock CG, Waugh W, et al. The WellPoint outcomes based formulary: enhancing the health technology assessment process. J Med Econ 2005;8:13-25
   Google Scholar
• Belsey J. Predictive validation of modeled health technology assessment claims: lessons from NICE. J Med Econ 2015;18(12):1007-1012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlessinger L, Eddy DM. Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems – the mathematical formulation. J Biomed Informatics 2002;35:37-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlender A, Alperion PE, Grossman HL, Sutherlands ER. Modeling the impact of increased adherence to asthma therapy. PLoS One 2012;7:e51139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Herick A, Schuetz CA, Alperin P, et al. The impact of initial statin treatment decisions on cardiovascular outcomes in clinical care settings: estimates using the Archimedes Model. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res 2012;4:337-47
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shum K, Alperin P, Shalnova S, et al. Simulating the impact of improved cardiovascular risk interventions on clinical and economic outcomes in Russia. PLoS One 2014;9:e103280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood J, et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch Syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011;4:9-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economics evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. J Med Econ 2013;16:713-19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caro JJ, Briggs A, Siebert U, et al. Modeling good research practices – Overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling good practices task force – 1. Value Health 2012;15:796-803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force – 7. Value Health 2012;15:843-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond ML, Sculphrt MJ, Torrance GM, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good research Practices – Budget Impact Analysis. Value Health 2007;10:336-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis – principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014;17:5-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall DA, Burgos-Liz L, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research – the SIMULATE checklist: Report of the ISPOR Simulation Modeling Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2015;18:5-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall DA, Burgos-Liz L, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Selecting a dynamic simulation modeling method for health care delivery research – Part 2: Report of the ISPOR Dynamic Simulation Modeling Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2015;18:147-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schommer J, Carlson A, Rhee G. Validating pharmaceutical product claims: questions a formulary committee should ask. J Med Econ 2015;18(12): 1000-1006
   Google Scholar
• Frappier J, Tremblay G, Charny M, et al. Costing bias in economic evaluations. J Med Econ 2015;18:596-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos I. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 3rd impression. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974
   Google Scholar
• Prochnow HV. The successful toastmaster: a treasure chest of introductions, epigrams, humor and quotations. New York: Harper Collins, 1966
   Google Scholar
• Ellis G, Silk J. Defend the integrity of physics. Nature 2014;516:321–3
   Google Scholar
• Frank A, Gleiser M. A crisis at the edge of physics. New York Times, June 7, 2015
   Google Scholar
• Ayala F. The candle and the darkness. Science 1996;273:442-4
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn TS. Logic of discovery or psychology of research. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A, editors. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 3rd impression. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974
   Google Scholar