1. Anis AH, Rahman T, Schechter MT. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:119–126.
2. Barbieri M, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. 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. Bührlen B. 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. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44–54.
5. Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 1998;17:50–64.
6. Davies SC, Cronin E, Gill M, et al. Screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia: A systematic review with supplementary research. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:i-v, 1–99.
7. Fischer KE, Leidl R, Rogowski WH. A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention. Health Policy. 2011;10:290–299.
8. Gerhardus A, Dorendorf E, Rottingen JA, Santamera A. What are the effects of HTA reports on the health system? Evidence from the research literature. In: Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Nielsen C, Busse R, eds. health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe - Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2008:109–136.
9. Grosse SD, Olney RS, Baily MA. 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. Grosse SD, Rogowski WH, Ross LF, et al. Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: Evidence, economics, and ethics. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:106–115.
11. Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-xi, 1–180.
12. Hartz S, John J. Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play? Health Policy. 2009;89:184–192.
13. Health Council of the Netherlands. Neonatal screening. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2005.
14. Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:10–18.
15. Jonsson B. Economic evaluation of medical technologies in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:597–604.
16. Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. 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. Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, Harrigan B, Briggs AH. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:813–830.
18. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75–89.
19. OECD. Chapter 4. Decision making and implementation: An analysis of survey results. Health Technologies And Decision Making. Paris: OECD; 2005.
20. Oortwijn W, Mathijssen J, Banta D. The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy. 2010;95:174–184.
21. Packer C, Simpson S, Stevens A. 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. Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S. 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. Rogowski WH, Hartz SC, John JH. 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. Schwarzer R, Siebert U. 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.
25. Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA, et al. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1:i-iv, 1–95.
26. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Biokemisk Screening For Medfodt Sygdom Hos Nyfodte. Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2008.
27. The International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.
28. Velasco Garrido M, Gerhardus A, Røttingen JA, Busse R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196–202.
29. Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines–A review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2008;86:1–9.
30. Zeuner D, Ades AE, Karnon J, et al. Antenatal and neonatal haemoglobinopathy screening in the UK: Review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:i–v, 1–186.