References
- Schuller Y, Hollak CE, Biegstraaten M. The quality of economic evaluations of ultra-orphan drugs in Europe – a systematic review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015 Jul 30;10:92.
- Van Harten WH, Wind A, de Paoli P, et al. Actual costs of cancer drugs in 15 European countries. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):18–20.
- Gammie T, Lu CY, Babar ZU-D, et al. Access to orphan drugs: a comprehensive review of legislations, regulations and policies in 35 countries. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 9;10(10):e0140002.
- Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP. Handbook of health economics. New York: Elsevier Science; 2000.
- Bae YHJ, Mullins CD. Do value thresholds for oncology drugs differ from nononcology drugs? J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014 Nov;20(11):1086–1092.
- Dilla T, Lizan L, Paz S, et al. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Dec 18;10:1–7.
- Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 Apr;8(2):165–178.
- Carrera PM, Ormond M. Current practice in and considerations for personalized medicine in lung cancer: from the patient’s molecular biology to patient values and preferences. Maturitas. 2015;82(1):94–99.
- Cheng MM, Ramsey SD, Devine EB, et al. Systematic review of comparative effectiveness data for oncology orphan drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2012 Jan;18(1):47–62.
- Han D, Trinkaus M, Hogeveen S, et al. Overcoming obstacles in accessing unfunded oral chemotherapy: physician experience and challenges. J Oncol Pract. 2013 Jul;9(4):188–193.
- Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013 Aug;22(8):948–964.
- Weernink M, Janus S, van Til JA, et al. A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation methods in healthcare decision making. Pharm Med. 2014 Aug;28(4):175–185.
- Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, et al. Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists’ and family physicians’ attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions. Value Health. 2013 Jul–Aug;16(5):842–847.
- Ubel PA, Berry SR, Nadler E, et al. In a survey, marked inconsistency in how oncologists judged value of high-cost cancer drugs in relation to gains in survival. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:709–717.
- Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, et al. Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Feb 1;93(2):118–124.
- Kanavos P, Angelis A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for value based assessment of new medical technologies: a conceptual framework. London School of Economics. Working paper No. 33/2013; 2013 Mar [cited 2016 Feb 4] Available from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/pdf/LSEHealthworkingpaperseries/LSEH-WP33_final.pdf
- Marsh K, IJzerman MJ, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016 Mar;19(2):125–137.
- Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014 Jan 17;15(4):335–340.
- Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug 10;33(23):2563–2577.
- Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1547–1573.