Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money.

PubWeight™: 1.14‹?› | Rank: Top 10%

🔗 View Article (PMC 3541977)

Published in Isr J Health Policy Res on November 26, 2012

Authors

Ofra Golan1, Paul Hansen2

Author Affiliations

1: Unit for Genetic Policy & Bioethics, The Gertner Institute for Epidemiology & Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
2: Department of Economics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Articles cited by this

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2004) 26.08

Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med (2001) 7.94

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet (2009) 4.55

The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ (1998) 4.03

Cost effectiveness/utility analyses. Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ (1992) 3.33

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report. Arthritis Rheum (2010) 1.94

Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health (2008) 1.89

Year 2006 update of the Israel National List of Health Services. Isr Med Assoc J (2006) 1.49

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med (2005) 1.47

The second phase of priority setting. Israel's basic basket of health services: the importance of being explicitly implicit. BMJ (1998) 1.36

Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy (2010) 1.28

Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg (2003) 1.25

Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics (2011) 1.23

A system for rating the stability and strength of medical evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol (2006) 1.19

Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Anal (2003) 1.11

Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res (2011) 1.06

An ethical analysis of international health priority-setting. Health Care Anal (2007) 1.02

The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy (2006) 1.00

An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making (2011) 0.96

[Updating the basket of health services]. Harefuah (2003) 0.95

The process of updating the National List of Health Services in Israel: is it legitimate? Is it fair? Int J Technol Assess Health Care (2009) 0.93

Relative urgency for referral from primary care to rheumatologists: the Priority Referral Score. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) (2011) 0.91

Bringing it all together: a novel approach to the development of response criteria for chronic gout clinical trials. J Rheumatol (2011) 0.88

Value for money - recasting the problem in terms of dynamic access prioritisation. Disabil Rehabil (2010) 0.79

Balancing relevant criteria in allocating scarce life-saving interventions. Am J Bioeth (2010) 0.78