AHRQ Series Commentary 3: The United States addresses comparative effectiveness but not cost-effectiveness through the Effective Health-Care Program

References 

1. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BAC. AHRQ Series Paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:481–483(In this issue)
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (73 KB)
   • CrossRef
2. Freemantle N. Does the UK need a fourth hurdle for pharmaceutical reimbursement to encourage the more cost effective prescribing of pharmaceuticals?. Health Policy. 1999;46:255–265
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (77 KB)
   • CrossRef
3. Freemantle N, Henry D, Maynard A, Torrance G. Promoting cost-effective prescribing: Great Britain lags behind. BMJ. 1995;310:955–956
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
4. Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, Lankshear A, Lowson K, Watt I, et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329:999–1004
   • CrossRef
5. Freemantle N. Is NICE delivering the goods?. BMJ. 2004;329:1003–1004
   • CrossRef
6. Orszag PR. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: options for an expanded federal role. CBO Testimony, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office; 2007;
7. Wilensky GR. Cost-effectiveness information: yes, it's important, but keep it separate, please!. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:967–968