참고문헌
- 건강보험심사평가원. 내부자료. 2008
- 건강보험심사평가원. 신약 등 협상대상 약제의 세부평가기준. 서울:건강보헙심사평가원;2008
- 배은영, 임민경. 약제급여결정기준에 관한 연구. 서울:건강보헙심사평가원;2007
- 배은영. 약품비 구성요소별 기여율 분석. 서울:건강보험심사평가원;2007
- 보건복지가족부. 건강보험 약제비 적정화 방안. 서울;보건복지가족부;2007
- 이태진. 의약품 보험 급여 및 가격 결정과 경제성평가의 활용. 예방의학회지 2008;41(2)69-73 https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2008.41.2.69
- 정형선, 김주경, 이규식, 신의철. 건강보험 기본급여의 우선순위. 보건행정학회지 2004;14(2):34-57 https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2004.14.2.034
- 최상은. 우리나라 의약품 경제성평가의 현황과 과제. 예방의학회지 2008;41(2):74-79 https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2008.41.2.74
- Anell A. Norinder A. Health outcome used in cost-effectiveness studies:a review of original articles published between 1986 and 1996. Health Policy 2000;51:89-99
- Baltussen R. Niessen L. Priority setting og health intervention: the need for multi-criteria dection analysis. Cost Effectiveness Resource Allocation 2006;4:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-4-14
- Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M, Towards a multi-criteria appoach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Rconomics 2006;15:689-696. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1092
- Baltussen R, Ten Asbreak AH, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Nissen L. Priority setting using multiple criteria: Should a lung health programme be omplemented in Nepal?. Health Policy plan 2007;22(3):178-185 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czm010
- Cappelen A, Norheim O, Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care. Health Policy 2006;76(3):312-319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.013
- Cookson R, Dolan P, Principle of justice in health care rationing. Jounal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:323-329 https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.26.5.323
- Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its dection? A binary Choice analysis. Economic Evaluation 2004;13:437-452
- Donaldon C and the Social Value of a QALY (SVQ) Reasearch Team. Weighting and valuing quality adjusted life years: preliminary results from the social value of a QALY project. England:National for Clinical Excellence(NICE) and National Co-ordination Centre for Research Methodology(NCCRM);2008
- Eicher H, Kong S, Gerth W, Mavros P, Jonsson B, Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge. Value in Health 2004;7(5)518-528 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75003.x
- Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social Science and Medicine 2000;50:63-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00268-3
- Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997:49-66.
- Hasman A. Elicting Reasons: Empirical Methods in Proerity Setting. Health Care Analysis 2003:11(1):41-58. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025385929559
- Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W, Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. New York:Cambridge University press;2005
- Johnson F. Backgouse M. Eliciting Stated Preferences for Health-Technology Adoption Criteria Using Paired Comparisons and Recommendation Judgements. Value in Health 2006:9(5)303-311 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00119.x
- Kapiriri L, Norhem O. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholder's values. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2004:82(3)172-179
- Kuhfeld W. Marketing Research Method in SAS. USA;SAS institute:2005.
- Louviere J. Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Newbury Park. CA:sage publications. 1988. cited from Johnson F, Backhoouse M. Elicting states Preferences for Health-Technology Adoption Criteria Using Paired Comparisions and Recommendation Judgments. Value in Health 2006;9(5)303-311 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00119.x
- New B. Defining a package of health care services the NHS is responsible for. The case for. BMJ 1997;314:503-5 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.503
- Noorani H, Husereau D, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setiing for health rechnology assesment: A systemic review of current practical approaches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007;23(3):310-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646230707050X
- Norheim O, Ekeberg Om Evensen S, Halvorsen M, Kvernebo K. Adoption of new health care services in Norway (1993-1997): specialists' self-assesment according to national criteria for priority setting. Health Policy 2001;56(1):65-79 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(00)00135-4
- Pol M, shiell A, Au F, Johnson D, Tough S. Convergent validity between a discrete choice experiment and a direct, oper-ended method: comparison of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay estimates. Social Science and Medicine 2008;67:2043-2050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.058
- Ratcliffe J, Bekker H, Dolan P, Edlin R. Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access. equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 2009;90(1):45-57 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.09.001
- Roberts T, Bryan S, Heginbotham C, McMallum A. Public involvoment in health care priority setting: an economic perspective. Health Exprctations 1999;2:235-244 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00061.x
- Rutten F, Busschbach J. How to Define a Basic Package of Health Services for a Tax Funded or Social Insurance Based Health Care System?. The European Journal of Health Economics 2001;2(2):45-46 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012219
- Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-1533 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530
- Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2003;2(1):55-64
- Ryan M, Sketun D, Major K. Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when cvaluating clinical practice. In : Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, Editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and care. Dordrecht:Springer;2008. pp101-116
- Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care?. International Journal of Technology assessment in Health Care 1999;15(3):443-457
- Ryynanen O, Myllykangas M, Vaskilampi T, Takala J. Random paired Scenarios-a method for investigating attitudes to prioritisation in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 1996;22(4):238-242 https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.4.238
- Schreyogg J, Stargardt T, Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R, Defining the "Health Benefit Basket" in nine European coutries: Evidence from the European Union Health BASKET Project. The Eupean Journal of Health Economics 2005;6 suppl 1:2-10
- Shani S, Siebzebner M, Luxenburg O, Shemer J, Setting Priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level-the Israeli experience. Health Policy 2000;54:196-185 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(00)00109-3
- Stolk E, Poley M. Criteria for determining a basic health services package. The European Journal of Health Economics 2005;6(1):2-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0271-0
- Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoemonomics 2007;25(8):685-693 https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725080-00006
- Weinstein M. Fron cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line? In: Solan F, editor. Valuing Health Care: Costs, Benefits, and Effectivess of Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Techologies. New York: Cambridge University Press;1995.
- World Bank. Gross domestic product 2007. Available from:URL : http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member.do?method=getMembers&userid=1&queryID=135
- cites from Eicher H, Kong S, gerth W, Mavros P, Jonsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making:How are cost-sffectiveness thresholds expected to emerge. Value in Health 2004;8(5):518-528
피인용 문헌
- Hospital preferences of nursing students in Korea: a discrete choice experiment approach vol.14, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-016-0156-1
- Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries vol.17, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0721-x