IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/f/pco941.html
   My authors  Follow this author

Amanda Megan Cole

Personal Details

First Name:Amanda
Middle Name:Megan
Last Name:Cole
Suffix:
RePEc Short-ID:pco941
Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria St, London, SW1E 6QT
+44 (0)20 7747 8861
Terminal Degree:2013 (from RePEc Genealogy)

Affiliation

Office of Health Economics

London, United Kingdom
http://www.ohe.org/

+44 (0) 20 7747 1440
+44 (0) 20 7691 7355
Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT
RePEc:edi:ohecouk (more details at EDIRC)

Research output

as
Jump to: Working papers Articles

Working papers

  1. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Zamora, B., 2020. "Indication-Based Pricing (IBP) Consultation Report," Consulting Reports 002261, Office of Health Economics.
  2. Bulut, M. & O'Neill, P. & Cole, A., 2020. "NICE 'Optimised' Decisions: What is the Recommended Level of Patient Access?," Consulting Reports 002280, Office of Health Economics.
  3. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Zamora, B., 2019. "Documento de debate sobre la fijación de precios en función de la indicación (IBP) ¿Deben variar los precios de los medicamentos según la indicación?," Briefings 002176, Office of Health Economics.
  4. Cole, A. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Pollard, J. & Sim, D. & Sullivan, R. & Sussex, J. & Lorgelly, P., 2019. "Making Outcome-Based Payment a Reality in the NHS," Research Papers 002115, Office of Health Economics.
  5. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Segal, C.S & Henshall, C. & Pearson, S.D, 2019. "Value, Access, and Incentives for Innovation: Policy Perspectives on Alternative Models for Pharmaceutical Rebates," Research Papers 002139, Office of Health Economics.
  6. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Zamora, B., 2019. "Indication-Based Pricing (IBP) Discussion Paper: Should drug prices differ by indication?," Briefings 002165, Office of Health Economics.
  7. Towse, A. & Cole, A. & Zamora, B., 2018. "The Debate on Indication-Based Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries," Consulting Reports 002009, Office of Health Economics.
  8. Cole, A. & O'Neill, P. & Sampson, C. & Lorgelly, P., 2018. "Barriers to Uptake of Minimal Access Surgery in the United Kingdom," Consulting Reports 001976, Office of Health Economics.
  9. Cole, A. & Towse, A., 2018. "Legal Barriers to the Better Use of Health Data to Deliver Pharmaceutical Innovation," Consulting Reports 002096, Office of Health Economics.
  10. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Lorgelly, P. & Sullivan, R., 2018. "Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," Research Papers 002030, Office of Health Economics.
  11. Lee, E.K & Park, J.A & Cole, A. & Mestre-Ferrandiz, J., 2017. "Data Governance Arrangements for Real-World Evidence: South Korea," Consulting Reports 001910, Office of Health Economics.
  12. Cole, A. & Lundqvist, A. & Lorgelly, P. & Norrlid, H. & Karlsberg Schaffer, S. & Lewis, F. & Hernandez-Villafuerte, K. & Lindgren, P. & Garau, M. & Welin, K-O & Bianchi, S. & Althin, R. & O'Neill, P. , 2016. "Improving Efficiency and Resource Allocation in Future Cancer Care," Consulting Reports 001748, Office of Health Economics.
  13. O'Neill, P. & Cole, A. & Duran, A. & Devlin, N., 2016. "An Analysis of NICE Technology Appraisal Decisions 'Recommended in Line with Clinical Practice'," Research Papers 001777, Office of Health Economics.
  14. Cole, A. & Marsden, G. & Devlin, N. & Grainger, D. & Lee, E.K & Oortwijn, W., 2016. ""New Age" Decision Making in HTA: Is It Applicable in Asia?," Briefings 001741, Office of Health Economics.
  15. Brockis, E. & Marsden, G. & Cole, A. & Devlin, N., 2016. "A Review of NICE Methods Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Differences, Justifications and Implications," Research Papers 001703, Office of Health Economics.
  16. Cole, A. & Chan, A. & Mujoomdar, M. & Pichler, F. & Towse, A., 2016. "How Can Health Technology Assessments in the Asia-Pacific Area Respond to Increased Clinical Uncertainty as a Consequence of Expedited US and EU Regulatory Processes?," Briefings 001740, Office of Health Economics.
  17. Chapman, A. & Karlsberg Schaffer, S., 2015. "Assessing the Use of Multi-indication Medicines: A Review of Current Data Capabilities in the UK," Consulting Reports 001595, Office of Health Economics.
  18. Shah, K. & Chapman, A. & Devlin, N. & Barnsley, P., 2015. "Do Respondents Completing Abstract, Hypothetical Priority-setting Exercises Agree With the Policy Implications of Their Choices?," Consulting Reports 001576, Office of Health Economics.
  19. Cole, A. & Garrison, L. & Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. & Towse, A., 2015. "Data Governance Arrangements for Real-World Evidence," Consulting Reports 001660, Office of Health Economics.

Articles

  1. Paula Lorgelly & Jack Pollard & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Amanda Cole & Duncan Sim & Jon Sussex, 2020. "Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: What Outcomes Do Patients with Cancer Value?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(5), pages 599-610, October.
  2. Amanda Cole & Koonal Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 595-605, May.
  3. Emma Cowles & Grace Marsden & Amanda Cole & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 469-477, August.
  4. A. Chapman & C. Taylor & A. Girling, 2014. "Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 347-357, August.

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Working papers

  1. Cole, A. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Pollard, J. & Sim, D. & Sullivan, R. & Sussex, J. & Lorgelly, P., 2019. "Making Outcome-Based Payment a Reality in the NHS," Research Papers 002115, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Brassel, S. & Rozanova, O. & Towse, A., 2019. "The WHO Technical Report on the Pricing of Cancer Medicines: Missing a central role for HTA and value assessment," Research Papers 002154, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Caridad Pontes & Corinne Zara & Josep Torrent-Farnell & Merce Obach & Cristina Nadal & Patricia Vella-Bonanno & Michael Ermisch & Steven Simoens & Renata Curi Hauegen & Jolanta Gulbinovic & Angela Tim, 2020. "Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 5-16, February.
    3. Paula Lorgelly & Jack Pollard & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Amanda Cole & Duncan Sim & Jon Sussex, 2020. "Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: What Outcomes Do Patients with Cancer Value?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(5), pages 599-610, October.

  2. Towse, A. & Cole, A. & Zamora, B., 2018. "The Debate on Indication-Based Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries," Consulting Reports 002009, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Néboa Zozaya & Bleric Alcalá & Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega, 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1407-1420, December.
    2. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Lorgelly, P. & Sullivan, R., 2018. "Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," Research Papers 002030, Office of Health Economics.
    3. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Zamora, B., 2019. "Indication-Based Pricing (IBP) Discussion Paper: Should drug prices differ by indication?," Briefings 002165, Office of Health Economics.
    4. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2020. "Value-Based Pricing Alternatives for Personalised Drugs: Implications of Asymmetric Information and Competition," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 357-362, June.

  3. Cole, A. & Towse, A., 2018. "Legal Barriers to the Better Use of Health Data to Deliver Pharmaceutical Innovation," Consulting Reports 002096, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Christopher James Sampson & Renée Arnold & Stirling Bryan & Philip Clarke & Sean Ekins & Anthony Hatswell & Neil Hawkins & Sue Langham & Deborah Marshall & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Will Sullivan & Edward , 2019. "Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(11), pages 1355-1369, November.

  4. Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Lorgelly, P. & Sullivan, R., 2018. "Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," Research Papers 002030, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Campillo-Artero & Jaume Puig-Junoy & José Luis Segú-Tolsa & Marta Trapero-Bertran, 2020. "Price Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 47-56, February.
    2. Dominik J. Wettstein & Stefan Boes, 2019. "Effectiveness of National Pricing Policies for Patent-Protected Pharmaceuticals in the OECD: A Systematic Literature Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 143-162, April.
    3. Neri, M. & Towse, A. & Garau, M., 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing (MIP): Practical Solutions and Steps to Move Forward," Briefings 002084, Office of Health Economics.
    4. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Néboa Zozaya & Bleric Alcalá & Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega, 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1407-1420, December.

  5. Brockis, E. & Marsden, G. & Cole, A. & Devlin, N., 2016. "A Review of NICE Methods Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Differences, Justifications and Implications," Research Papers 001703, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Tom Lung & Kirsten Howard & Christopher Etherton-Beer & Moira Sim & Gill Lewin & Glenn Arendts, 2017. "Comparison of the HUI3 and the EQ-5D-3L in a nursing home setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Petra Marešová & Lukáš Peter & Jan Honegr & Lukáš Režný & Marek Penhaker & Martin Augustýnek & Hana Mohelská & Blanka Klímová & Kamil Kuča, 2020. "Complexity Stage Model of the Medical Device Development Based on Economic Evaluation—MedDee," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(5), pages 1-1, February.
    3. Fernando Antoñanzas & Robert Terkola & Paul M. Overton & Natalie Shalet & Maarten Postma, 2017. "Defining and Measuring the Affordability of New Medicines: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 777-791, August.

  6. Chapman, A. & Karlsberg Schaffer, S., 2015. "Assessing the Use of Multi-indication Medicines: A Review of Current Data Capabilities in the UK," Consulting Reports 001595, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. & Towse, A. & Dellamano, R. & Pistollato, M., 2015. "Multi-indication Pricing: Pros, Cons and Applicability to the UK," Seminar Briefings 001653, Office of Health Economics.

  7. Shah, K. & Chapman, A. & Devlin, N. & Barnsley, P., 2015. "Do Respondents Completing Abstract, Hypothetical Priority-setting Exercises Agree With the Policy Implications of Their Choices?," Consulting Reports 001576, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. McHugh, Neil & van Exel, Job & Mason, Helen & Godwin, Jon & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam & Baker, Rachel, 2018. "Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 61-69.
    2. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    3. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2018. "Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 39-50.

  8. Cole, A. & Garrison, L. & Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. & Towse, A., 2015. "Data Governance Arrangements for Real-World Evidence," Consulting Reports 001660, Office of Health Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Cole, A. & Towse, A., 2018. "Legal Barriers to the Better Use of Health Data to Deliver Pharmaceutical Innovation," Consulting Reports 002096, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Néboa Zozaya & Bleric Alcalá & Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega, 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1407-1420, December.

Articles

  1. Amanda Cole & Koonal Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 595-605, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Devlin, N. & Lorgelly, P. & Herdman, M., 2019. "Can We Really Compare and Aggregate PRO Data Between People and Settings? Implications for Multi-Country Clinical Trials and HTA," Research Papers 002094, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.

  2. Emma Cowles & Grace Marsden & Amanda Cole & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 469-477, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Francisca Crispi & Huseyin Naci & Eva Barkauskaite & Leeza Osipenko & Elias Mossialos, 2019. "Assessment of Devices, Diagnostics and Digital Technologies: A Review of NICE Medical Technologies Guidance," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 189-211, April.
    2. James Love-Koh & Alison Peel & Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla & Kate Ennis & Rosemary Lovett & Andrea Manca & Anastasia Chalkidou & Hannah Wood & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1439-1451, December.
    3. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.

  3. A. Chapman & C. Taylor & A. Girling, 2014. "Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 347-357, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Emma Cowles & Grace Marsden & Amanda Cole & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 469-477, August.
    2. Brockis, E. & Marsden, G. & Cole, A. & Devlin, N., 2016. "A Review of NICE Methods Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Differences, Justifications and Implications," Research Papers 001703, Office of Health Economics.

More information

Research fields, statistics, top rankings, if available.

Statistics

Access and download statistics for all items

Co-authorship network on CollEc

NEP Fields

NEP is an announcement service for new working papers, with a weekly report in each of many fields. This author has had 11 papers announced in NEP. These are the fields, ordered by number of announcements, along with their dates. If the author is listed in the directory of specialists for this field, a link is also provided.
  1. NEP-HEA: Health Economics (6) 2018-05-21 2018-05-21 2018-05-21 2018-05-28 2018-07-16 2020-08-31. Author is listed
  2. NEP-IAS: Insurance Economics (2) 2019-03-04 2019-03-25
  3. NEP-INO: Innovation (2) 2018-07-16 2018-12-24
  4. NEP-BEC: Business Economics (1) 2019-05-20
  5. NEP-EUR: Microeconomic European Issues (1) 2018-05-21
  6. NEP-LAW: Law & Economics (1) 2018-12-24
  7. NEP-SEA: South East Asia (1) 2018-05-21

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. For general information on how to correct material on RePEc, see these instructions.

To update listings or check citations waiting for approval, Amanda Megan Cole should log into the RePEc Author Service.

To make corrections to the bibliographic information of a particular item, find the technical contact on the abstract page of that item. There, details are also given on how to add or correct references and citations.

To link different versions of the same work, where versions have a different title, use this form. Note that if the versions have a very similar title and are in the author's profile, the links will usually be created automatically.

Please note that most corrections can take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.