Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, Blom M, Donaldson C, Klarenbach S, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health. 2014;17(1):98–108.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zozaya N, Villaseca J, Fernandez I, Abdalla F, Cadenas-Norena B, Calleja MA, et al. A review of current approaches to evaluating and reimbursing new medicines in a subset of OECD countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024;22(3):297–313.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Department of Health and Social Care. 2024 Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing. London: Access and Growth; 2024.

Google Scholar 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. London: NICE; 2022.

Google Scholar 

Perelman J, Soares M, Mateus C, Duarte A, Faria R, Ferreira L, et al. Methodological guidelines for economic evaluation studies. INFARMED–National Authority of Medicines and Health Products. Lisbon: IP; 2019. https://www.infarmed.pt/documents/15786/4001413/Orientações+metodológicas+para+estudos+de+avaliação+económica+de+tecnologias+de+saúde+%28EN%29/ebcfd930-94e2-c7e1-100a-ee1df3d76882. Accessed 14 Nov 2024.

Australian Government: Department of Health and Aged Care. Post-market reviews of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidised medicines 2024. Available from: https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/reviews/subsidised-medicines-reviews. Accessed 10 Oct 2024.

Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket T. TLV genomför och föreslår nya åtgärder för ökad prisdynamik på läkemedelsmarknaden 2022. Available from: https://www.tlv.se/press/nyheter/arkiv/2022-06-16-tlv-genomfor-och-foreslar-nya-atgarder-for-okad-prisdynamik-pa-lakemedelsmarknaden.html?query=%20v%C3%A4rdebaserad%20priss%C3%A4ttning. Accessed 10 Oct 2024.

Lee D, Burns D, Wilson E. NICE’s pathways pilot: pursuing good decision making in difficult circumstances. Pharmacoecon Open. 2024;8(5):645–9.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim methods and processes statement for including NICE technology appraisal recommendations in guideline topic areas. London: NICE; 2024. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/consultations/2495/8/integrating-nice-technology-appraisal-recommendations. Accessed 14 Nov 2024.

Canadian Drug and Health Technology Agency. Pilot expert committee to support decision-making across the drug life cycle 2023. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/news/pilot-expert-committee-support-decision-making-across-drug-life-cycle. Accessed 13 Feb 2024.

Cheyne S, Chakraborty S, Lewis S, Campbell S, Turner T, Norris S. What could health technology assessment learn from living clinical practice guidelines? Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1234414.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Smith R, Schneider P, Mohammed W. Living HTA: automating health economic evaluation with R [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2022;7:194.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Thokala P, Srivastava T, Smith R, Ren S, Whittington MD, Elvidge J, et al. Living health technology assessment: issues, challenges and opportunities. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(3):227–37.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ades AE, Welton NJ, Dias S, Phillippo DM, Caldwell DM. Twenty years of network meta-analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments. Res Synth Methods. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1700.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Woods B, Lomas J, Sculpher M, Weatherly H, Claxton K. Achieving dynamic efficiency in pharmaceutical innovation: Identifying the optimal share of value and payments required. Health Econ. 2024;33(4):804–19.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Claxton K, Asaria M, Chansa C, Jamison J, Lomas J, Ochalek J, et al. Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies. J Benefit Cost Anal. 2019;10(Suppl 1):73–105.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mihaylova B, Wu R, Zhou J, Williams C, Schlackow I, Emberson J, et al. Lifetime effects and cost-effectiveness of standard and higher-intensity statin therapy across population categories in the UK: a microsimulation modelling study. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;40: 100887.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Love-Koh J, Cookson R, Gutacker N, Patton T, Griffin S. Aggregate distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health technologies. Value Health. 2019;22(5):518–26.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Johannesen KM, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Wailoo AJ. How to design the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework. Health Econ. 2018;27(2):e41–54.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kirwin E, Round J, Bond K, McCabe C. A conceptual framework for life-cycle health technology assessment. Value Health. 2022;25(7):1116–23.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics. 2022. Cost-effectiveness of ravulizumab (Ultomiris®) for the treatment of patients weighing at least 10kg with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), who are complement inhibitor treatment-naïve or have received eculizumab for at least three months and have evidence of response to eculizumab. https://ncpe.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/Ravulizumab-for-aHUS-Technical-Summary-20036-Final-updatedWebsite.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2024.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Bortezomib and thalidomide for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma. London: NICE; 2011.

Google Scholar 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for previously untreated multiple myeloma. London: NICE; 2019.

Google Scholar 

Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):799–806.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Basu A. Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care. J Health Econ. 2011;30(3):549–59.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Basu A, Jena AB, Goldman DP, Philipson TJ, Dubois R. Heterogeneity in action: The role of passive personalization in comparative effectiveness research. Health Econ. 2014;23(3):549–59.

Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):112–27.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Espinoza MA, Manca A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice-based decision-making process in a collectively funded health system. Health Econ. 2018;27(2):e28–40.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sculpher M. The cost-effectiveness of preference-based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia. Health Econ. 1998;7(2):129–42.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Connecting value and costs Whom do we ask, and what do we ask them? JAMA. 1990;264(13):1737–9.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jiao B, Carlson JJ, Garrison LP Jr, Basu A. Evaluating policies of expanding versus restricting first-line treatment choices: a cost-effectiveness analysis framework. Value Health. 2024;27(4):433–40.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Barrenho E, Moens M, Waagstein L, Lopert R. Enhancing competition in on-patent markets.In: OECD Health Working Papers, No. 156. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/413f2820-en.

Kettler H. Competition through innovation, innovation through competition. London; 1998.

Paulden M. Calculating and Interpreting ICERs and net benefit. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(8):785–807.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Paulden M. Why it’s time to abandon the ICER. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(8):781–4.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Woods B, Fox A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Estimating the shares of the value of branded pharmaceuticals accruing to manufacturers and to patients served by health systems. Health Econ. 2021;30(11):2649–66.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):781–98.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–503 (v-vi).

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Vallejo-Torres L, Garcia-Lorenzo B, Castilla I, Valcarcel-Nazco C, Garcia-Perez L, Linertova R, et al. On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how? Value Health. 2016;19(5):558–66.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lomas J, Martin S, Claxton K. Estimating the marginal productivity of the English national health service from 2003 to 2012. Value Health. 2019;22(9):995–1002.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Department of Health and Social Care. Statutory scheme to control costs of branded health service medicines. London: Department of Health and Social care; 2020.

Google Scholar 

Dixon S. Including patient choice in cost-effectiveness decision rules. Sheffield:University of Sheffield; 2007. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/10913/1/HEDS_DP_07-06.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2024.

Specialist Pharmacy Service. “Tranche” branded medicines in a competitive market. 2021. Available from: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/tranche-branded-medicines-in-a-competitive-market/. Accessed 13 Nov 2024.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE-wide topic prioritisation: the manual. London: NICE; 2024. Available from: