This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
1. AH Anis , T Rahman , MT Schechter . Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:119–126.
2. M Barbieri , N Hawkins , M Sculpher . Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health. 2009;12:193–201.
3. B Bührlen . Innovation in health care: The role of HTA in the introduction of new technologies. [German] Innovation im Gesundheitswesen: Die Rolle von HTA bei der Einführung neuer Technologien. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh Wesen. 2010;104:703–708.
4. P Carlsson . Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44–54.
5. N Daniels , J Sabin . The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 1998;17:50–64.
9. SD Grosse , RS Olney , MA Baily . The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: A critique. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:239–247.
10. SD Grosse , WH Rogowski , LF Ross , Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: Evidence, economics, and ethics. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:106–115.
11. S Hanney , M Buxton , C Green , D Coulson , J. Raftery An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-xi, 1–180.
12. S Hartz , J John . Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play? Health Policy. 2009;89:184–192.
15. B Jonsson . Economic evaluation of medical technologies in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:597–604.
16. MA Koopmanschap , EA Stolk , X Koolman . Dear policy maker: Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:198–204.
17. AR Levy , C Mitton , KM Johnston , B Harrigan , AH. Briggs International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:813–830.
18. D Menon , T Stafinski . Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75–89.
20. W Oortwijn , J Mathijssen , D Banta . The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy. 2010;95:174–184.
21. C Packer , S Simpson , A Stevens . International diffusion of new health technologies: A ten-country analysis of six health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:419–428.
22. A Pandor , J Eastham , C Beverley , J Chilcott , S Paisley . Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii, 1–121.
23. WH Rogowski , SC Hartz , JH John . Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.
24. R Schwarzer , U Siebert . Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305–314.
28. Garrido M Velasco , A Gerhardus , JA Røttingen , R Busse . Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196–202.
29. L Vuorenkoski , H Toiviainen , E Hemminki . Decision-making in priority setting for medicines–A review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2008;86:1–9.