Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-5qg8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-21T17:25:05.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2017

Floortje Moes ,
Eddy Houwaart ,
Diana Delnoij  and
Klasien Horstman
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Corrigendum
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 401
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

doi:10.1017/S1744133116000281, published online by Cambridge University Press 15 November 2016.

Errors were made on page 8 under the heading 5. Contested evidence. The first sentence should read ‘In 2011, increase in the price of a specific brand of bladder instillations (Uracyst) attracted the attention of insurance companies.’

References

Moes, F., Houwaart, E., Delnoij, D. and Horstman, K. (2016), ‘Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court’, Published Online 15 November 2016. doi: 10.1017/S1744133116000281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar