1. Anis, AH, Rahman, T, Schechter, MT. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:119–126.
2. Barbieri, M, Hawkins, N, Sculpher, M. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health. 2009;12:193–201.
3. Bührlen, B. Innovation in health care: The role of HTA in the introduction of new technologies. [German] Innovation im Gesundheitswesen: Die Rolle von HTA bei der Einführung neuer Technologien. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh Wesen. 2010;104:703–708.
4. Carlsson, P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44–54.
5. Daniels, N, Sabin, J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 1998;17:50–64.
6. Davies, SC, Cronin, E, Gill, M, et al. Screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia: A systematic review with supplementary research. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:i-v, 1–99.
7. Fischer, KE, Leidl, R, Rogowski, WH. A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention. Health Policy. 2011;10:290–299.
8. Gerhardus, A, Dorendorf, E, Rottingen, JA, Santamera, A. What are the effects of HTA reports on the health system? Evidence from the research literature. In: Velasco, Garrido M, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, C, Busse, R, eds. health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe - Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2008:109–136.
9. Grosse, SD, Olney, RS, Baily, MA. The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: A critique. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:239–247.
10. Grosse, SD, Rogowski, WH, Ross, LF, et al. Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: Evidence, economics, and ethics. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:106–115.
11. Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-xi, 1–180.
12. Hartz, S, John, J. Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play? Health Policy. 2009;89:184–192.
13. Health Council of the Netherlands. Neonatal screening. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2005.
14. Hutton, J, McGrath, C, Frybourg, JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:10–18.
15. Jonsson, B. Economic evaluation of medical technologies in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:597–604.
16. Koopmanschap, MA, Stolk, EA, Koolman, X. Dear policy maker: Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:198–204.
17. Levy, AR, Mitton, C, Johnston, KM, Harrigan, B, Briggs, AH. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:813–830.
18. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75–89.
19. OECD. Chapter 4. Decision making and implementation: An analysis of survey results. Health Technologies And Decision Making. Paris: OECD; 2005.
20. Oortwijn, W, Mathijssen, J, Banta, D. The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy. 2010;95:174–184.
21. Packer, C, Simpson, S, Stevens, A. International diffusion of new health technologies: A ten-country analysis of six health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:419–428.
22. Pandor, A, Eastham, J, Beverley, C, Chilcott, J, Paisley, S. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii, 1–121.
23. Rogowski, WH, Hartz, SC, John, JH. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.
24. Schwarzer, R, Siebert, U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305–314.
25. Seymour, CA, Thomason, MJ, Chalmers, RA, et al. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1:i-iv, 1–95.
26. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Biokemisk Screening For Medfodt Sygdom Hos Nyfodte. Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2008.
27. The International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.
28. Velasco, Garrido M, Gerhardus, A, Røttingen, JA, Busse, R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196–202.
29. Vuorenkoski, L, Toiviainen, H, Hemminki, E. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines–A review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2008;86:1–9.
30. Zeuner, D, Ades, AE, Karnon, J, et al. Antenatal and neonatal haemoglobinopathy screening in the UK: Review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:i–v, 1–186.