Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 22, Issue 13, pp 857–876 | Cite as

A Decision Chart for Assessing and Improving the Transferability of Economic Evaluation Results Between Countries

  • Robert Welte
  • Talitha Feenstra
  • Hans Jager
  • Reiner Leidl
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective: To develop a user-friendly tool for managing the transfer of economic evaluation results.

Methods: Factors that may influence the transfer of health economic study results were systematically identified and the way they impact on transferability was investigated. A transferability decision chart was developed that includes: knock out criteria; a checklist based on the transferability factors; and methods for improving transferability and for assessing the uncertainty of transferred results. This approach was tested on various international cost-effectiveness studies in the areas of interventional cardiology, vaccination and screening.

Results: The transfer of study results is possible pending the outcomes of the transferability check and necessary adjustments. Transferability factors can be grouped into areas of methodological, healthcare system and population characteristics. Different levels of effort are required for analysis of factors, ranging from very low (e.g. discount rate) to very high (e.g. practice variation). The impact of differences of most transferability factors can be estimated via the key health economic determinants: capacity utilisation, effectiveness, productivity loss and returns to scale.

Depending on the outcomes of the transferability check a correction of the study results for inflation and for differences related to currencies or purchasing power might be sufficient. Otherwise, modelling-based adjustments might be necessary, requiring the (re-)building and sometimes structural modification of the study model. For determination of the most essential adjustments, a univariate sensitivity analysis seems appropriate. If not all relevant study parameters can be substituted with country-specific ones, multivariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis seems to be a promising way to quantify the uncertainty associated with a transfer. If study results cannot be transferred, the transfer of study models or designs should be investigated as this can significantly save time when conducting a new study.

Conclusions: Our transferability decision chart is a transparent and user-friendly tool for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results. A state of the art description of the methodology in a study, providing detailed components for calculation, is not only essential for determining its transferability but also for improving it via modelling adjustments.

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Modelling Adjustment Transferability Factor Study Country Practice Variation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors have advised there was no external funding to support this study and therefore, the authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Glick HA, Orzol SM, Tooley JF, et al. Design and analysis of unit cost estimation studies: how many hospital diagnoses? How many countries? Health Econ 2003; 12 (7): 517–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pang F. Design, analysis and presentation of multinational economic studies: the need for guidance. Pharmacceconomics 2002; 20 (2): 75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koopmanschap MA, Touw KC, Rutten FF. Analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness in multinational trials. Health Policy 2001 Nov; 58 (2): 175–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, van Doorslaer EKA. Multinationale kosteneffectiviteitsanalyses. In: Rutten-van Mtilken MPMH, Busschbach JJ, Rutten FFH. Van kosten tot effecten. Een handleiding voor evaluatiestndies in de gezondheidszorg. Maarssen: Elsevier gezondheidszorg, 2000: 131–49Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greiner G, Schöffski O, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The transferability of international health-economic results to national study questions. Eur J Health Econ 2000; 2: 94–102Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Erkel AR, van den Hout WE, Pattynama PM. International differences in health care costs in Europe and the United States: do these affect the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism? Eur Radiol 1999; 9 (9): 1926–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glick H, Willke R, Polsky D, et al. Economic analysis of tirilazad mesylate for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: economic evaluation of a phase III clinical trial in Europe and Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998 Winter; 14 (1), 145–60Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rutten-van Mölken MP, van Doorslaer EK, Till MD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salrreterol in patients with asthma. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Dec; 14 (6): 671–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulman K, Burke J, Drummond M, et al. Resource costing for multinational neurologic clinical trials: methods and results. Health Econ 1998 Nov; 7 (7): 629–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, et al. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998 Sep; 7 (6): 481–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menzin J, Oster G, Davies L, et al. A multinational economic evaluation of rhDNase in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996 Winter; 12 (1): 52–61Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, et al. How cost-effective is breast cancer screening in different EC countries? Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A (12): 1663–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7 (4): 561–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manca A, Sculpher M, Rice N, et al. Assessing the variability of cost-effectiveness estimates across geographical locations [abstract]. 4th International Health Economics Association World Congress; 2003 Jun 15–18; San Francisco. 381Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drummond MF, Bloom BS, Carrin G, et al. Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992 Fall; 8 (4): 671–82Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drummond M, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with praxis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 256–76Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Späth HM, Carrere MO, Fervers B, et al. Analysis of the eligibility of published economic evaluations for transfer to a given health care system. Methodological approach and application to the French health care system. Health Policy 1999 Nov; 49 (3): 161–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mason J. The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997 Jun; 11 (6): 503–14Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rutten F. Economic evaluation and health care decision-making. Health Policy 1996 Jun; 36 (3): 215–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A. Real world designs in economic evaluation: bridging the gap between clinical research and policy-making. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Nov; 16 (5 Pt 1): 449–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Revicki DA, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world: effectiveness versus efficacy studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 May; 15 (5): 423–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rizzo JD, Powe NR. Methodological hurdles in conducting pharmacoeconomic analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Apr; 15 (4), 339–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bryan S, Brown J. Extrapolation of cost-effectiveness information to local settings. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998 Apr; 3 (2): 108–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tonkin AM. Issues in extrapolating from clinical trials to clinical practice and outcomes. Aust N Z J Med 1998 Aug; 28 (4): 574–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phelps CE. Good technologies gone bad: how and why the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention changes for different populations. Med Decis Making 1997 Jan-Mar; 17 (1): 107–17Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A. The impact of age on cost-effectiveness ratios and its control in decision making. Health Econ 1996 May-Jun; 5 (3): 227–39Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baltussen R, Ament A, Leidl R. Making cost assessments based on RCTs more useful to decision-makers. Health Policy 1996 Sep; 37 (3): 163–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marchioli R, Marfisi RM, Carinci F, et al. Meta-analysis, clinical trials, and transferability of research results into practice: the case of cholesterol-lowering interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 1996 Jun 10; 156 (11): 1158–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein’s monster or vampire of trials? Med Care 1996 Dec; 34 Suppl. 12: DS99–108Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Welte R, Leidl R. Übertragung der Ergebnisse ökonomischer Evaluationsstudien aus dem Ausland auf Deutschland: Problerre und Lösungsansätze. In: Leidl R, Von der Schulenburg JMG, Wasem J, editors. Ansätze und Methoden der ökonomischen Evaluation: eine internationale Perspektive. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999: 171–202Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Brien BJ. A tale of two (or more) cities: geographic transferability of pharmacoeconomic data. Am J Manag Care 1997 May; 3 Suppl.: S33–9Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmemes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leidl RM. Some factors to consider when using the results of economic evaluation studies at the population level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1994 Summer; 10 (3): 467–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Attinger EO, Panerai RB. Transferability of health technology assessment with particular emphasis on developing countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1988; 4: 545–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002 Jun; 11 (4): 341–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, et al. Work status and productivity costs due to ankylosing spondylitis: comparison of three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 2002 May; 61 (5), 429–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coyle D, Drummond MF. Analyzing differences in the costs of treatment across centers within economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001 Spring; 17 (2): 155–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grover SA, Coupal L, Zowall H, et al. How cost-effective is the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes but without cardiovascular disease? Diabetes Care 2001 Jan; 24 (1): 45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, De Backer G, et al. Are the WOSCOPS clinical and economic findings generalizable to other populations? A case study for Belgium. The WOSCOPS Economic Analysis Group. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Acta Cardiol 2000 Aug; 55 (4): 239–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grieve R, Porsdal V, Hutton J, et al. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of stroke care provided in London and Copenhagen. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Spring; 16 (2): 684–95Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haycox A, Dubois D, Butterworth M. Customising an international disease management model to the needs of individual countries: application to upper gastrointestinal disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 Suppl. 2: 39–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Imamura K, Black N. Outcome of total hip replacement in Japan and England: comparison of two retrospective cohorts. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998 Fall; 14 (4): 762–73Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elliot D. Costing intensive care services: a review of study methods, results and limitations. Aust Crit Care 1997 Jun; 10 (2), 55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heyland DK, Kernerman P, Gafni A, et al. Economic evaluations in the critical care literature: do they help us improve the efficiency of our unit? Crit Care Med 1996 Sep; 24 (9): 1591–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Drummond M, Ferraz MB, Mason J. Assessing the cost effectiveness of NSAID: an international perspective. J Rheumatol 1995 Jul; 22 (7): 1408–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care: opportunities and challenges to international comparisons. In: Lasser U, Rocella EJ, Rosenfeld, JB, et aI., editors. Costs and benefits in health care and prevention: an international approach to priorities in medicine. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Serruys PW, van Hout B, Bonnier H, et al. Randomised comparison of implantation of heparin-coated stents with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with coronary artery disease (Benestent II). Lancet 1998 Aug 29; 352 (9129): 673–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cohen DJ, Krumholz HM, Sukin CA, et al. In-hospital and oneyear economic outcomes after coronary stenting or balloon angioplasty: results from a randomized clinical trial. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. Circulation 1995 Nov 1; 92 (9),2480–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cohen DJ, Breall JA, Ho KK, et al. Evaluating the potential cost-effectiveness of stenting as a treatment for symptomatic single-vessel coronary disease: use of a decision-analytic model. Circulation 1994 Apr; 89 (4): 1859–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cohen DJ, Breall JA, Ho KK, et al. Economics of elective coronary revascularization: comparison of costs and charges for conventional angioplasty, directional atherectomy, stenting and bypass surgery. J Am ColI Cardiol 1993 Oct; 22 (4): 1052–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dick RJ, Popma JJ, Muller DW, et al. In-hospital costs associated with new percutaneous coronary devices. Am J Cardiol 1991 Oct 1; 68 (9): 879–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Institute of Medicine. Committee to study priorities for vaccine development. Vaccines for the 21st century: a tool for decisionmaking. Stratton KR, Durch JS, Lawrence RS, editors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Welte R, Kretzschmar M, Leidl R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach. Sex Transm Dis 2000 Oct; 27 (9),518–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kretzschmar M, Welte R, van den Hoek A, et al. Comparative model-based analysis of screening programmes for Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Am J Epidemiol 2001 Jan 1; 153 (1): 90–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Klose T, Leidl R, Buchmann I, et al. Primary staging of lymphomas: cost-effectiveness of FDG-PEr versus computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 2000 Oct; 27 (10): 1457–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mansley EC, Dunet DO, May DS, et al. Variation in average costs among federally sponsored state-organized cancer detection programmes: economies of scale? Med Decis Making 2002 Sop-Oct; 22 Suppl5: S67–79Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sanders GD, Taira AV. Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Errerg Infect Dis 2003 Jan; 9 (1): 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Consensus Conference on Guidelines on Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment. Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies: a consensus statement. Phannacoeconomics 2000 May; 17 (5): 443–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Briggs AB. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 May; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures. 1999 Benchmark year. Paris: OECD, 2002Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Health Data 2002 [database on CD ROM]. Paris: OECD, 2002Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Danzon PM, Chao LW. Cross-national price differences for pharmaceuticals: how large, and why? J Health Econ 2000 Mar; 19 (2): 159–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kochs G, Welte R, Leidl R. Stenting versus Ballondilatation bei koronarer Herzkrankheit. Systematische Übersicht zur Kosten-Effektivität. In: Perleth M, Kochs G, editors. Stenting versus Ballondilatations bei koronarer Herzkrankheit. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999: 121–256Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kochs G. Die Stentimplantation bei chronischem Koronaarterienverschluss aus gesundheitsökonomischer Sicht. Magisterarbeit. Ulm: University of Ulm, 1998Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Banz K, Schwicker D. Cost-effectiveness of Palmaz-Schatz feminine stenting in patients with coronary artery disease in Germany. J Invasive Cardiol 1997 Mar; 9 Suppl. A: 23A–8AGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schwicker D, Banz K. New perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of Palmaz-Schatz feminine coronary stenting, balloon angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass surgery. J Invasive Cardiol1997 Mar; 9 Suppl. A: 7A-16AGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OEeD Health Data 1998 [database on CD ROM]. Paris: OECD, 1998Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Van der Zeijst BAM, Dijkman MI, Kramers PGN, et al. Naar een vaccinatieprogrammema voor Nederland in de 21ste eeuw. RIVM report 000001001. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2000 SepGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Østergaard L, Andersen B, Møller JK, et al. Screening for klamydia med hijmrretest: en medicinsk teknologivurdering. Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen, Center for Evaluering og Medicinsk Teknologivurdering, 2002Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submission involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 2002Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    College voor zorgverzekeringen. Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek. Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen, 1999Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hannoveraner Konsens Gruppe. Deutsche empfehlungen zur gesundheitsökonomischen evaluation: revidierte fassung des hannoveraner konsens. Medizinische Klinik 2000; 95: 52–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technology Appraisals Process Series No 5. Guidance for manufactures and sponsors. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001 JunGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    HM Treasury. The Green Book, appraisal and evaluation in central government. Discount rate, Annex 6. London: TSO, 2003Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Taghreed A, Evans DB, Koopmanschap MA. Cost-effectiveness analysis: can we reduce variability in costing methods. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19 (2): 407–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995 Jun; 14 (2): 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996 Nov; 10 (5), 460–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Yusuf S, Flather M, Pogue J, et al. Variations between countries in invasive cardiac procedures and outcomes in patients with suspected unstable angina or myocardial infarction without initial ST elevation. OASIS (Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischaemic Syndromes) Registry Investigators. Lancet 1998 Aug 15; 352 (9127): 507–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Poulsen PB, Vondeling H, Dirksen CD, et al. Timing of adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Denmark and in The Netherlands: a comparative study. Health Policy 2001 Feb; 55 (2): 85–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Herzlinger RE. Market driven health care: who wins, who loses in the transformation of America’s largest service industry. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1997Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Sari N. Do competition and managed care improve quality? Health Econ 2002 Oct; 11 (7): 571–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Brown III HS. Managed care and technical efficiency. Health Econ 2003 Feb; 12 (2): 149–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Luft HS, Hunt SS, Maerki SC. The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? Health Serv Res 1987 Jun; 22 (2): 157–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Luft HS. The relation between surgical volume and mortality: an exploration of causal factors and alternative models. Moo Care 1980 Sep; 18 (9): 940–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Luft HS, Bunker IP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Moo1979 Dec 20; 301 (25): 1364–9Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hughes RG, Hunt SS, Luft HS. Effects of surgeon volume and hospital volume on quality of care in hospitals. Med Care 1987 Jun; 25 (6): 489–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Showstack JA, Rosenfeld KE, Garnick DW, et al. Association of volume with outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: scheduled vs nonscheduled operations. JAMA 1987 Feb 13; 257 (6): 785–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ho V. Learning and the evolution of medical technologies: the diffusion of coronary angioplasty. J Health Econ 2002 Sep; 21 (5), 873–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Labelle R, Stoddart G, Rice T. A re-examination of the meaning and importance of supplier-induced demand. J Health Econ 1994 Oct; 13 (3): 347–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Forsberg E, Axelsson R, Arnetz B. Financial incentives in health care: the impact of performance-based reimbursement. Health Policy 2001 Dec; 58 (3): 243–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Norton EC, Van Houtven CH, Lindrooth RC, et al. Does prospective payment reduce inpatient length of stay? Health Econ 2002 Jul; 11 (5): 377–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 1992 Mar 25; 267 (12): 1624–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Liao L, Whellan DJ, Tabuchi K, et al. Differences in care-seeking behaviour for acute chest pain in the United States and Japan. Am Heart J 2004; 147 (4): 630–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Brooks RG, Jendteg S, Lindgren B, et al. EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement: results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Policy 1991 Jun; 18 (1): 37–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Nord E. EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement: valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991 Jun; 18 (1): 25–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Claes C, Greiner W, et al. The German Version of the EuroQol questionnaire. J Publ Health/Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften 1998; 6 (1): 2–20Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Murti B, Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, et al. Comparisons of finish- and US-based VAS valuations of the EQ-5D. Greiner W, von der Schulenburg J, Piercy J, editors. EuroQol, Plenary Meeting 1st to 2nd October 1998, Discussion papers, Schriftenreilie des Instituts für Versicherungsbetriebslehre der Uni Hannover, Band 2. Hannover: Uni-Verlag Witte, 1999Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Urquhart I. Pharmacoeconomic consequences of variable patient compliance with prescribed drug regimens. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Mar; 15 (3): 217–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bleyer AJ, Hylander B, Sudo H, et al. An international study of patient compliance with hemodialysis. JAMA 1999 Apr 7; 281 (13): 1211–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zweifel P, Manning WG. Moral hazard and consumer incentives in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000: 409–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    College voor zorgverzekeringen. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek. Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen, 2000Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Jacobs-van der Bruggen MUM, Welte R, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Aan roken toe te schrijven productiviteitskosten voor Nederlandse werkgevers in 1999. RIVM report 4035050081 2002. Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 2002Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Magvas E. Wie lange dauert es, eine Stelle zu besetzen? Wer wird eingestellt? Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (lAB) Werkstattbericht. Diskussionsbeiträge des IAB No. 18. Niirnberg, lAB: 1999 OctGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Fine PE. Herd immunity: history, theory, practice. Bpidemiol Rev 1993; 15 (2): 265–302Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Brisson M, Edmunds WI. Economic evaluation of vaccination programmes: the impact of herd-immunity. Med Decis Making 2003 Jan-Feb; 23 (1): 76–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Welte
    • 1
    • 2
  • Talitha Feenstra
    • 2
  • Hans Jager
    • 2
  • Reiner Leidl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management (IGM)GSF National Research Center for Environment and HealthNeuherbergGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Prevention and Health Services ResearchNational Institute of Public Health and the EnvironmentBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations