• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Economic and quality of life outcomes in oncology: the regulatory perspective.

作者信息

Turner S

出版信息

Oncology (Williston Park). 1995 Nov;9(11 Suppl):121-5.

PMID:8608041
Abstract

The federal government's involvement in cost-effectiveness studies, outcomes measures, and practice guideline development is haphazard, with a number of agencies taking part in the process. The Health Care Financing Administration (responsible for Medicare and Medicaid) and other third-party government payers informally and unscientifically judge the cost-effectiveness of treatments, particularly new technologies, when making coverage decisions. FDA policy restricts pharmaceutical companies from disseminating information on cost-effectiveness by requiring that such data be part of the product labeling. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research has produced only a small number of practice guidelines and at a much higher cost than the private sector. Medical societies and other private organizations will ultimately find it in their best interest to include cost-effectiveness and outcomes measures in study protocols and to develop treatment guidelines related to their specialties.

摘要

相似文献

1
Economic and quality of life outcomes in oncology: the regulatory perspective.
Oncology (Williston Park). 1995 Nov;9(11 Suppl):121-5.
2
Quality of care developments. 1993 update.医疗质量发展。1993年更新版。
Qual Lett Healthc Lead. 1993 Jun;5(5 Suppl):Si-iii, S1-13.
3
American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.美国临床肿瘤学会指导声明:癌症护理的成本
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 10;27(23):3868-74. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1183. Epub 2009 Jul 6.
4
Deciding which drugs get onto the formulary: a value-based approach.确定纳入处方集的药物:基于价值的方法。
Value Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(5):901-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1623. Epub 2013 May 15.
5
Policy formulation and technology assessment.政策制定与技术评估。
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1981 Summer;59(3):445-79.
6
The reimbursement factor in pharmaceutical regulation: rebates, cost-effectiveness, and practice guidelines.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;1(Suppl 1):21-7. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199200011-00007.
7
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.德国药品效益评估的程序和方法。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
8
Medicare payment for new technologies. Can the process be improved despite conflicting goals? An ECRI technology management assessment.医疗保险对新技术的支付。尽管目标相互冲突,这个过程能否得到改进?一项医疗保健研究与质量机构(ECRI)的技术管理评估。
J Health Care Technol. 1986 Summer;3(1):13-32.
9
Seeking effectiveness in health care: the federal perspective.探寻医疗保健的成效:联邦政府的视角
Internist. 1990 Jan;31(1):9-10.
10
Satisfying the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services.满足美国食品药品监督管理局以及医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的要求。
J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Mar;5(3):189-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.09.005.

引用本文的文献

1
A promising method for identifying cross-cultural differences in patient perspective: the use of Internet-based focus groups for content validation of new patient reported outcome assessments.一种识别患者观点中跨文化差异的有前景的方法:利用基于互联网的焦点小组对新的患者报告结局评估进行内容验证。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Sep 22;4:64. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-64.