This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (35)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Making Them Transparent, Making Them Credible

Drummond Rennie, MD; Harold S. Luft, PhD

JAMA. 2000;283:2158-2160.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The issue of prescription drug benefits is being hotly debated in the United States. We can be sure that cost-conscious insurance organizations, both governmental and commercial, will demand an ever stronger role in deciding which drugs they pay for and include in managed care formularies. Pharmaceutical companies can be expected to continue to fund analyses of the cost-effectiveness of their products, and, as legal and political maneuvering in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia has shown, to continue to bring great political and legal pressure on the organizations responsible for deciding the relative merits of their products.^1-3 Much of the battle will revolve around measurements of the cost-effectiveness of new drugs.

Recently, Friedberg et al⁴ found that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies were one eighth as likely to reach unfavorable qualitative conclusions and 1.4 times as likely to reach favorable qualitative conclusions as . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco (Drs Rennie and Luft); and JAMA, Chicago, Ill (Dr Rennie).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Suzanne R. Hill, Andrew S. Mitchell, and David A. Henry
JAMA. 2000;283(16):2116-2121.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

ACE inhibitors: back to prime time?
Gupta et al.
Heart 2007;93:1015-1016.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Trial Investigators and Their Prescribing Patterns: Another Dimension to the Relationship Between Physician Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry
Psaty and Rennie
JAMA 2006;295:2787-2790.
FULL TEXT  

Medicare and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Neumann et al.
NEJM 2005;353:1516-1522.
FULL TEXT  

Rethinking prescribing in the United States
Ellner
BMJ 2003;327:1397-1400.
FULL TEXT  

Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants
Baker et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;183:498-506.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations in Health Care
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2809-2812.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Understanding Costs and Cost-Effectiveness in Critical Care . Report from the Second American Thoracic Society Workshop on Outcomes Research
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002;165:540-550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence: Its Meanings in Health Care and in Law
Havighurst et al.
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2001;26:195-216.
 

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Courts: Recent Trends and Future Prospects
Jacobson and Kanna
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2001;26:291-326.
ABSTRACT  

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Making a Pseudoscience Legitimate
Rennie
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2001;26:383-386.
 

Problems in Pharmacoeconomic Analyses
Stafford et al.
JAMA 2000;284:1922-1924.
FULL TEXT