What can economics add to health technology assessment? Please not just another cost-effectiveness analysis!

References

• Claridge J, Fabian T. History and development of evidence-based medicine. World J. Surg. 29(5), 547–553 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Smith JA. Assessing the Case for Social Experiments. J. Econ. Persp. 9(2), 85–110 (1995).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312, 1215–1218 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimm AA, Bortin M. Clinical Trials as a Religion. Biomed. Special Issue 28, 60–63 (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63, 121–132 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weedon D. Health technology assessment in Australia. Med. J. Aust. 171(10), 551–552 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(3), 896–890 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21(1), 89–95 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for design, analysis and reporting of studies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21(2), 165–171 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimisation analysis? Health Econ. 10(2), 179–184 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, P. The measurement of Health Related Quality of Life. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J. Health Econ.1723–1748 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. In: Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia. (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 19(6), 609–621 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf JA, Earnshaw SR, Mullins C. Budget impact analysis: review of the state of the art. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 5(1), 65–79. (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra wefarism? Soc. Science Med. 56, 1121–1133 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in Health Economics. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(4), 213–224 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bridges J. Understanding the risks associated with resource allocation decisions in health: An illustration of the importance of portfolio theory. Health Risk Soc. 6(3), 257–275 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mennemeyer ST. Can Econometrics Rescue Epidemiology? Annal. Epidemiol. 7, 249–250 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenthal, KM. In: An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales. 2nd Edition. Psychology Press, PA, USA. (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med. Decis. Making 2(4), 449–462 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Frontiers in econometrics. Zarembka P (Ed.). Acad Pr, NY, USA. 105–142 (1974).
   Google Scholar
• Nord E. The QALY – A measure of social value rather than individual utility. Health Econ. 3(2), 89–93 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Bridges J. Future Challenges for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare: Patient Preferences, Risk Attitudes and Beyond. Pharmacoeconomics 23(4), 317–321 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devereaux PJ, Yosuf P. The evolution of the randomized controlled trial and its role in evidence based decision making. J. Int. Med. 254(2), 105–113 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spanos A In: Statistical Foundations of Econometric Modelling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 213–219 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Bulpitt CJ. Subgroup analysis. Lancet 2, 31–34 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 10, 317–324 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallones RA. The use and abuse of subgroup analysis in epidemiological research. Prev. Med. 16, 183–194 (1987).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan F, Dougan G. Non-clinical safety evaluation of novel vaccines and adjuvants: New Products, New Strategies, Vaccine 23(24), 3210–3222 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang S. Biotechnology – Updates and new developments. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 14(1–2), 32–39 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Leu R, Doppmann R. Die Nachfrage nach Gesundheit und Gesundheitsleistungen. In: Ökonomie des Gesundheitswesen. Gaefgen G (Ed.). Duncker und Humbolt, Berlin, Germany.161–175 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich I, Kim J. In: Endogenous fertility, mortality and economic growth: Can a Malthusian framework account for the conflicting historical trends in population? NBER Working Paper 11590. NBER, MA, USA. (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Masson C. New product entries and product class demand. Marketing Sci. 9(1), 55–73 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Graff Z, Bridges J. Addressing risk preferences in cost-effectiveness analyses. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 1(3), 135–139 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Elbasha E. Risk aversion and uncertainty in CEA: The expected utility, moment generating function approach. Health Econ. 14(5), 457–470 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Markowitz H. Portfolio Selection. J. Finance 7, 77–91 (1952).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien B, Sculpher M. Building Uncertainty into Cost-Effectiveness Rankings: Portfolio Risk-Return Trade-Offs and Implications for Decision Rules. Med.l Care 38(5), 460–468 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, Stewart M, King MT, van Gool K. Adapting portfolio theory for the evaluation of multiple investments in health with a multiplicative extension for treatment synergies. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3, 47–53 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Sendi P, Al MJ, Gafni A, Birch S. Optimizing a portfolio of health care programs in the presence of uncertainty and constrained resources. Soc. Sci. Med. 57, 2207–2215 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Altman DG. Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls. Lancet 359, 1686–1689 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Paltiel AD. Mathematical Programming for the Efficient Allocation of Health Care Resources. J. Health Econ. 15(5), 641–653 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willson T, Holt T. Complexity science: Complexity and clinical care. BMJ 323, 685–688 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Creedy J. In: General Equilibrium and Welfare. Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey RG, Lancaster K. The General Theory of Second Best. Rev. Econ. Studies 24, 11–32 (1956).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascie-Taylor CG, Karim E. The burden of chronic disease. Science 302(5652), 1921–1992 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Hull J. In: Options, Future and other Derivatives, Fourth Edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. 1–15 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Becker G, Mulligan K. The endogenous determination of time preference. Q. J. Econ. 112, 729–758 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch S. Making the problem fit the solution: Evidence-based decision-making and 'dolly' economics. In: Evidence-based Health Econ.: From effectiveness to efficiency in systematic review. Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L. (Eds), BMJ Books, London, UK. (2002).
   Google Scholar