Kees van Gool (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) Gisselle Gallego (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) Marion Haas (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) Rosalie Viney (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) Jane Hall (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) Robyn Ward (School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)
Additional information is available for the following
registered author(s):
Like other countries, Australia has had some success in incorporating economic evidence into national healthcare decisions. However, it has been recognised that this coverage does not extend to the local hospital or health region level. An extensive body of research has identified barriers to the use of economic evidence at the local level, leading some commentators to suggest that economic evaluation should only be targeted at national decision-making bodies. Yet, local decision makers in Australia and elsewhere make important choices about the uptake and diffusion of healthcare technologies. We propose a number of interrelated options to address the barriers that currently prohibit the use of economic evaluation by local decision makers in many jurisdictions. These include wider dissemination of user friendly models, inclusion of assessments of the cost impact of interventions on various budgets, and the establishment of an authoritative body that ensures the production of high quality economic models. It is argued that these options can have a significant impact on the way economic evaluations are conducted, reported, disseminated and used.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Article provided by Wolters Kluwer Health | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods D - Microeconomics I - Health, Education, and Welfare Z - Other Special Topics I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets