1. Australian Government Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia: Productivity Commission research report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission; 2005.
2. Borowski, HZ, Brehaut, J, Hailey, D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: The Alberta model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:155–161.
3. Buxton, MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1133–1142.
5. Gallego, G, Fowler, S, van Gool, K. Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32:520–527.
6. Gallego, G, Melocco, T, Taylor, SJ, Brien, JE. Access to high-cost drugs: Decision makers' perspectives. J Pharm Pract Res. 2005;35:18–20.
7. Griffith, G. Commonwealth-state responsibilities for health: “Big bang” or incremental reform? Briefing paper no. 17/06. Sydney: Parliament of NSW; 2006.
8. Hailey, DM, Roseman, C. Health care technology in Australia and New Zealand: Contrasts and cooperation. Health Policy. 1990;14:177–189.
9. Hoffmann, C, Graf von der Schulenburg, JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 2000;52:179–192.
10. IJzerman, MJ, Reuzel, RP, Severens, HL. Pre-assessment to assess the match between cost-effectiveness results and decision makers' information needs: An illustration using two cases in rehabilitation medicine in the Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:17–27.
11. Jansson, S, Anell, A. The impact of decentralised drug-budgets in Sweden – a survey of physicians' attitudes towards costs and cost-effectiveness. Health Policy. 2006;76:299–311.
12. Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S, Hivon, M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: Identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30:603–641.
13. Martin, D, Singer, P. A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:59–68.
14. McGregor, M, Brophy, JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263–267.
15. Mitchell, AS. Antipodean assessment. Activities, actions, and achievements. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:203–212.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD; 2005.
20. Spigelman, AD. Governance and innovation: Experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76:9–13.
21. Strauss, AL, Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
22. The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). Moving forward – the funding of medicines in Australia's hospitals. Melbourne: The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA); 2004.
23. van Velden, ME, Severens, JL, Novak, A. Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: The influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision making levels. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:1075–1082.
25. Zwart-van Rijkom, JE, Leufkens, HG, Busschbach, JJ et al. , Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision making in the Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET project. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:149–160.