SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding?
3 references·14 citing·38 second hop
Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? (2005)Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do…QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature (2004)QALY maximisation and people'…Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument (1997)Intergenerational Equity: An …Setting Health Care Priorities in Oregon (1991)Setting Health Care Prioritie…Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers (2018)Evaluating and Valuing Drugs …Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group (2018)Challenges in Research and He…Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL) (2017)Recommendations from the Euro…Ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs: is possible to reconcile economic incentives and patients’ health needs? (2017)Ethical imperatives of timely…Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation (2015)Can the EVIDEM Framework Tack…Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework (2014)Value-Based Reimbursement Dec…Disrupting the Community—Saving Public Health Ethics from the EU Internal Market (2011)Disrupting the Community—Savi…Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67 (2010)Societal views on orphan drug…Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence (2010)Access to orphan drugs despit…A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study (2010)A discrete choice experiment …The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process (2008)The use of cost-effectiveness…Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue? (2008)Media influence on Herceptin …Are rare diseases still orphans or happily adopted? The challenges of developing and using orphan medicinal products (2006)Are rare diseases still orpha…A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs (2006)A journey of hope: lessons le…Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries (2016)DRUG EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING IN CATALONIA: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK BASED ON MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS (MCDA) FOR ORPHAN DRUGS (2017)HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries (2017)Preference and Urgency (1975)Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health and Medical Practices (1977)A general health policy model: update and applications. (1988)A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. (1999)Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes (1999)Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and the Consistency of Decision Making (2001)Understanding DALYs (1997)Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project (2010)Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment (2012)Essentially Contested Concepts (1994)Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (2000)The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice (1981)The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice (1985)Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision (1992)Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment (2014)Establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug (2020)Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949)Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2011)Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue (2008)A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) (2015)American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options (2015)Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Models in Health Technology Assessment of Orphan Drugs—a Systematic Literature Review. Next Steps in Methodology Development? (2018)Comparing access to orphan medicinal products in Europe (2019)The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer (2010)Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making—An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force (2016)Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making—Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force (2016)Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? (2005)Public healthcare resource allocation and the Rule of Rescue (2008)Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency (2011)Value-Based Pricing for Emerging Gene Therapies: The Economic Case for a Higher Cost-Effectiveness Threshold (2019)Incentives for orphan drug research and development in the United States (2008)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1997Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument845 cited
  • 1991Setting Health Care Priorities in Oregon441 cited
  • 2004QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature431 cited

Cited by

  • 2006A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs185 cited
  • 2018Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group131 cited
  • 2017Ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs: is possible to reconcile economic incentives and patients’ health needs?113 cited
  • 2018Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers109 cited
  • 2017Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)103 cited
  • 2010Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67103 cited
  • 2014Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework99 cited
  • 2006Are rare diseases still orphans or happily adopted? The challenges of developing and using orphan medicinal products88 cited
  • 2010Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence82 cited
  • 2008The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

78 cited
  • 2015Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation77 cited
  • 2010A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study76 cited
  • 2008Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue?57 cited
  • 2011Disrupting the Community—Saving Public Health Ethics from the EU Internal Market19 cited