Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 12, 2012 - Issue 3
Submit an article Journal homepage
99
Views
13
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Special Report

Role of health technology assessment in the process of implementation of the EU Transparency Directive: relevant experience from Central Eastern European countries

Katarzyna Kolasa Department of Pharmacoeconomics, Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland. [email protected]; Department of Pharmacoeconomics, Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland. [email protected]
,
Zoltan Kalo Health Economics Research Centre, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary; Health Economics Research Centre, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
,
Vladimir Zah ZRx Outcomes Research Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada; ZRx Outcomes Research Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada
&
Tomas Dolezal Institute for Health Economics and Technology Assessment, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Pharmacology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute for Health Economics and Technology Assessment, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Pharmacology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Pages 283-287 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18, 361–442 (2002).
  • Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 19(1), 1–7 (2003).
  • Creditor MC, Beetle JK. The information base for diffusion of technology: computed tomography scanning. N. Engl. J. Med. 297(1), 49–52 (1977).
  • Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 25(6), 1083–1120 (2000).
  • Jonsson E. Development of health technology assessment in Europe. A personal perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18(2), 171–183 (2002).
  • Werkö L, Banta D. Report from the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 11(4), 797–799 (1995).
  • Jonsson E, Banta HD, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L. Executive summary of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. European Collaboration for Health Technology Assessment/Assessment of Health Interventions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18(2), 213–217 (2002).
  • Banta D, Oortwijn W. Introduction: health technology assessment and the European Union. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(2), 299–302 (2000).
  • Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Health Technology Assessment: An Introduction to Objectives, Role of Evidence, and Structure in Europe. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, World Health Organization, Brussels, Belgium (2005).
  • Wanke M, Juzwishin D, Thornley R, Chan L. An Exploratory Review of Evaluations of Health Technology Assessment Agencies. Alberta Heritage, Alberta, Canada (2006).
  • Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(3), 244–258; discussion 362 (2008).
  • Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jönsson B. Use of cost–effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost–effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 7(5), 518–528 (2004).
  • George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost–effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 19(11), 1103–1109 (2001).
  • Laufer F. Thresholds in cost–effectiveness analysis – more of the story. Value Health 8(1), 86–87 (2005).
  • Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost–effectiveness. Risk Anal. 15(3), 369–390 (1995).
  • Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost–effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 7(1), 1–7 (1998).
  • Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Mullins CD. Healthcare rationing by proxy: cost–effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 28(3), 175–184 (2010).
  • Culyer T, Lomas J. Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in healthcare: do they work and how might we know? Evid. Policy 2, 357–371 (2006).
  • Liberati A, Sheldon TA, Banta HD. EUR-ASSESS Project subgroup report on methodology: methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 13(2), 186–219 (1997).
  • Kolasa K, Wasiak R. Health technology assessment in Poland and Scotland: comparisons of processes and decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28(1), 70–76 (2012).
  • Szende Á, Mogyorósy Z, Muszbek N, Nagy J, Pallos G, Dózsa CS. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3(3), 196–202 (2002).
  • Gallo P. Integrating ethical enquiry and health technology assessment: limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Prax. 2, 103–117 (2004).
  • Boncz I, Dozsa C, Kalo Z et al. Development of health economics in Hungary between 1990–2006. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 1) (2006).
  • Ministerial Decree on the Inclusion of New Pharmaceuticals and Medical Nutrition Products to the Reimbursement List. Hungarian Ministry of Health, Social and Family Affairs 32/2004 (IV. 26.) (2004).
  • Gulácsi L, Boncz I, Drummond M. Issues for countries considering introducing the ‘fourth hurdle’: the case of Hungary. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(3), 337–341 (2004).
  • Kaló Z, Docteur E, Moïse P. Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies in Slovakia (OECD Health Working Paper, No. 31). OECD/OCDE, Paris, France (2008).
  • Kolasa K, Schubert S, Manca A, Hermanowski T. A review of health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations for drug therapies issued between 2007 and 2009 and their impact on policymaking processes in Poland. Health Policy 102(2–3), 145–151 (2011).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.