What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care
; 25: 7–9.
Medical Benefits Reviews Task Group, Department of Health and Ageing. Development of a quality framework for the Medicare Benefits Schedule: discussion paper. April 2010. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR.
Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy
; 4: 23–30.
Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J, Benguria-Arrate G, Galnares-Cordero L.
Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: possible sources for their identification. Int J Technol Assess Health Care
; 25: 249–54.
Goodman C. HTA 101 introduction to health technology assessment. Falls Church, VA: Lewin Group; 2004.
Pearson S, Littlejohns P.
Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? J Health Serv Res Policy
; 12: 160–5.
Kanavos P, Persson U, Drummond M. The future of health technology assessment in Europe. London: London School of Economics; 2008.
Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, 2009.
HTA in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care
; 25: 61–7.
Hughes D, Ferner R.
New drugs for old: disinvestment and NICE. BMJ
; 340: 690–2.
The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law
; 24: 715–58.
Frellsen MB, Kristensen FB. Technologies that are claimed useless or applied in a useless way should undergo HTA and be discarded from daily practice if proven so. Case: routinely performed chest x-ray at admission. Abstract. Health Technology Assessment International Conference. 2005. Rome.
Pritec tool for obsolete health technologies. Available at http://www.pritectools.es/Controlador/documentosAction.php
[Verified 20 August 2009].
Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: issues and options for an expanded federal role. Pub. No. 2975. Washington DC: Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office; 2007.
Academy Health. Incorporating costs into comparative effectiveness research. Washington DC: Academy Health; 2009.
Institute of Medicine. Knowing what works: a roadmap for the nation. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
Clancy C, Collins FS.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci Transl Med
; : 2.
Comparative Effectiveness Research: a progress report. Ann Intern Med
; 153: 469–72.
Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
Hall J. Variations in health care costs and utilisation. Sydney: NSW Treasury; 2008.
NHMRC. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Endorsed 1998. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1999.
Mitton C, Peacock S, Donaldson C, Bate A.
Using PBMA in health care priority setting: description, challenges and experience. Appl Health Econ Health Policy
; 2: 121–7.
Carter R, Vos T, Moodie M, Haby M, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C.
Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the assessing cost effectiveness (ACE) initiative. Expert Review in Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
; 8: 593–617.
Segal L, Mortimer D.
A population-based model for priority setting across the care continuum and across modalities. Cost Eff Resour Alloc
; 4: 6–14.
Segal L, Chen Y. Priority setting models for health: the role for priority setting and a critique of alternative models. A summary. Centre for Health Program Evaluation Working Paper 119, 2001.
Eager K, Garrett P, Lin V. Health planning: Australian perspectives. Sydney: Allen and Unwin; 2001.
Segal L, Day S, Chapman A, Osborne R. Priority setting in osteoarthritis. Research Paper 12. Melbourne Health Economics Unit, Monash University, 2006.
Segal L, Day SE, Chapman A, Osborne R.
Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? Med J Aust
; 180: S11–7.
Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance. Rewarding provider performance: aligning incentives in Medicare. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
Department of Health. Using the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) payment framework. London: Department of Health; 2008.
Rosenthal MB, Fernandopulle R, Song HR, Landon BE.
Paying for quality: providers’ incentives for quality improvement. Health Aff
; 23: 127–41.
Duckett S, Daniels S, Kamp M, Stockwell A, Walker G, Ward M.
Pay for performance in Australia: Queensland’s new Clinical Practice Improvement Payment. J Health Serv Res Policy
; 13: 174–7.
Dudley RA, Frolich A, Robinowitz DL, Talavera JA, Broadhead P, Luft HS. Strategies to support quality-based purchasing: a review of the evidence. AHRQ Publication No. 04–0057. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality; 2004.
Mullen KJ, Frank RG, Rosenthal MB.
Can you get what you pay for? Pay-for-performance and the quality of healthcare providers. Rand J Econ
; 41: 64–91.
Gravelle H, Sutton M, Ma A.
Doctor behaviour under a pay for performance contract: treating, cheating and case finding? Econ J
; 120: F129–56.
Medicare Select: a bold reform? Aust Econ Rev
; 43: 63–70.
Shortell SM, Casalino LP, Fisher ES.
How the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation should test accountable care organizations. Health Aff
; 29: 1293–8.