政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/38384

政大典藏 > College of Commerce > Graduate Institute of Technology and Innovation Management > Theses > Item 140.119/38384

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/38384

Title:	台灣建立醫藥科技評估（HTA）制度之研究 Research on the HTA mechenism in Taiwan
Authors:	陳如如 Chen, Ju-Ju
Contributors:	溫肇東陳如如 Chen, Ju-Ju
Keywords:	醫藥科技評估 HTA
Date:	2008
Issue Date:	2010-04-08 16:09:59 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	建立一個評估創新醫療科技是否具價值的機制，並將評估結果作為公共政策制定或管理的依據，牽涉的範圍包括產業、科技、醫學、管理、經濟、民眾等面向，影響的層面不僅只政府及人民的需求，還可能涉及產業界龐大的商業利益與競爭壓力，甚至影響未來的科技進展走向，不同面向之利害關係人及各參與群體的立場或理念往往不同，甚至敏感對立，各種可控制及不可控制的因果關聯也極為複雜。除相關的利害關係人群體間因立場不一致，可能產生衝突而影響政策之可行性外，還面臨各方對醫療科技評估角色、相關制度規劃及執行模式等制度建立之要素是否有共識、研究能力及科學基礎是否足夠、基礎環境是否已完備等，都是制度能否建立及有效運作之影響變因。本研究針對我國建立醫療科技評估之政策可行性，及連帶牽動之制度架構規劃與執行運作設計等面向之相關影響變數，進行不同利害關係人群體間之意見分析，以深入訪談政府單位、學者專家及產業界代表的方式，探討我國發展HTA制度之最主要的爭議點，並參酌國際經驗，提出我國如何平順進行醫療科技評估之建議。自訪談中發現台灣發展HTA最可能面對的問題為產業界對此政策的疑慮和反彈壓力；各利害團體間對HTA角色、定位、評估方法、判斷標準及研究報告如何使用之認知與共識；制度面的完整規劃及運作；HTA對中小型企業可能造成的衝擊；本土資料缺乏、人才不足、及使用者對HTA報告沒有信心等。因此本研究將依據研究發現與討論，嘗試自我國建立HTA之政策可行性、發展HTA之法規環境、HTA執行模式及相關運作規劃等面向，提出研究結論與可行建議：研究結論壹、針對我國建立HTA之政策可行性的探討：由國際各區域的HTA發展情形可知HTA已為國際趨勢，雖然產業界與政府及學者專家對我國是否有必要發展HTA機制有二極的看法，本研究經研討後認為政府有義務介入新醫療科技的發展和使用，以確保民眾獲得及使用醫療資源的可近性與可靠性，再加上HTA方法學可協助提供充分且可靠的資訊，協助並增進決策制定的品質，因此國內有建立HTA機制的必要性與需要性，目前亦為國內開始推動HTA的適合時機。貳、針對我國發展HTA之法規環境及HTA執行模式之探討：推動HTA機制須否設立法源及明確的法規，本研究經研討後認為初始的推動過程中，以行政命令的方式推動會較有效率，但當最後社會共識形成，國內環境成熟後，建立法源依據對推動及落實仍有其需要性，因為包括相關研究如何公開及如何使用，都會涉及到權利義務，一旦研究內容有所爭議，也才較具裁量的空間及效力。至於立法的方式，單獨立法或初期附屬在一個法之下，或初期以軟性方式描述，隨著國內的HTA報告之參考性逐漸被認可及能產生效應，再階段性演進為硬性規範，都是可行的方式。而在執行模式的探討上，由研究結果可知，科學、透明、公正，具有公信力，是各界對HTA報告之最重要的要求，至於執行單位，則不限政府單位設立的財團法人、學術界、社團學會、研究中心或產業界等都可以執行。至於HTA機制與目前決策委員會間角色功能的探討，因為科學能提供的是有限證據，仍需要各領域專家就其經驗提供實務意見，政策單位再考量其特定的政策或政治目的，將科學證據、實務經驗與政治考量結合，進行最後的決策。觀諸國際經驗，大多數以國家力量執行HTA的國家，雖然都已設立具法律依據、獨立的科學專責機構執行HTA的評估或研究，但是中央政策單位仍會組織相關的委員會進行督導或審議。因此，以專家委員會協助決策制定的機制在短時間內是不會改變的方式，HTA評估機制也無法完全取代專家經驗。參、對於我國HTA運作規劃之探討： 1. 研究能力相對於我國有已建置之健保資料庫，各國也都面臨研究所需之資訊不足的問題，因此國際各國的HTA機制除了專職的評估或研究人員外，也聘請了許多的專家顧問或外審人力，整個機制中也含括許多的專家委員會，及與學研界間之合作管道；而除了各國本身的機制外，國際間也成立了許多的HTA合作網絡及跨國的HTA學會，以期增進針對HTA相關知識與經驗之合作研究及資訊分享。國內除善用國際資源及建立與學研單位間的合作管道外，我國機制中若能由政府投資經費並出面協調與整合相關的HTA組織，含括學界、醫界及HTA機構共同進行整合性應用研究，甚至將相關需求以國際競標的方式，請國際專家來幫忙，則可望各界均有機會自實案中逐步學習與累積相關研究實力。由政府投資經費進行整合性應用研究的好處是可避免學界依靠廠商的捐款或補助進行研究，而使HTA的研究成果失去公正客觀。除相關機制的建立外，研究人員可嘗試於已建置的健保資料庫取得抽樣資料，依不同狀況建立假說，進行不同可能性的模型推估。至於需否制定政策誘因，以激發產業界願意投入，共同產生國內目前不足的本土流行病學資料或新科技適當使用的指引規範。自研究中之訪談結果顯示，雖然目前政策單位已就如何訂立鼓勵政策進行相關可行性設計，但若能先將制度的透明度及一致性做好，產業界能預期效果，自動就會投入，且若政策重視好的本土數據，並能在決策上看到效果及影響，則學術界、學會等自然也會願意付出行動，各方面能量就會很快的啟動。 2. 研究執行國內執行HTA研究，不需要開發自我的方法學，因為國際公認的方法學已經過演進，能接受挑戰，且研究結果較能被國際標準認同。由於進行一個HTA評估需耗費相當的人力、時間、金錢，在資源有限的情形下，HTA資源的運用需有其優先順序之安排；觀諸國際經驗，各國的HTA機制對於研究議題的產出也有不同的方式，若自新藥是否納入給付之層面而言，我國與國際各國類似，工作計畫單純來自政府委託評估的個案。但對於醫療照護領域相關之公共政策議題的研究，我國尚未發展出民眾及基層醫療人員參與提出健康照護相關議題之機制，是否朝更開放透明的全民社會參與的機制進行設計，因涉及整個運作流程的效率問題，可由政策主管單位視需要性進行研議。但研究結果完成後應有周延的檢討，且對於現行使用中的科技也應有定期檢視的機制。 3. 政策運行方式建議建構溝通平台，邀集各界討論及溝通，進行各方面意見的整合，使產業界去敏感性並願意尋求合作利基。溝通平台的發起及召集者，應由政策主導單位擔任。各項法令的定義及標準的設立，主政機構能連動可用資源及最終期望能達到的目標進行整體的策略思考，避免因片段的決策，衍生其他額外問題，同時盡量避免過多模糊的空間，以使產業界為其產品進行策略規劃時能有清楚明確的依據，並能預期可能結果。 Perspectives from industry, technology, medicine, management, economics and people are essential to the establishing of an innovative health technology assessment (HTA) mechanism for the purpose to placing the assessment results as a basis of public policy decision-making. The impacts of an innovative HTA mechanism were not only occurred to the government and people`s needs but also to huge commercial interests and competitions, and even to the future progression of science & technology of a country. Different stakeholders might have different thoughts and standpoints and these conflicts might lead to the failure of a HTA mechanism at the end. In addition to that roles of HTA, consensus on important components for planning & executing models, capabilities of research & groundwork of science, infrastructure etc. all are influencing factors to the establishment and the successful operation of a HTA mechanism of a country. The purposes of the study were to explore the policy possibility and the factors connected to the system planning and operation design of HTA mechanism in Taiwan. Comprehensive literature review and in-deep interviews to the experts from government, academia and industry affiliates were executed to discover the most critical points. A potential HTA mechanism in Taiwan has been projected after the considerations of global experiences and the study findings. Study revealed that the most important issue of the HTA mechanism in Taiwan was the nervousness and the opposition from the industry. In addition to that consensus has not been reached on the roles, position, methods of assessment, criteria of judgment, and even the usage of reports of the HTA. How to establish a comprehensive planning and operation system, potential impacts of HTA to small and medium enterprises in Taiwan, lack of domestic data, insufficient person of talent, and no confidence to the HTA reports from the users etc. were all important factors exposed by this study and have to be resolved in the future. Conclusion of the study was provided as below: 1. Aspect of the policy possibility: Although there existed different opinions on the HTA mechanism in Taiwan among industry, government and academia the necessity and essentiality of HTA mechanism were recognized and currently was a suitable time to endorse such a mechanism in Taiwan. However under current situations where consensus not reached for the roles of HTA, lack of persons with talents and experiences the most practical ways in this early beginning stage were to cultivate people and to go through learning process. By following the acceptance of HTA report and the appearance of important issues concerned by the society roles and directions of the HTA in Taiwan would be consolidated. Why and how to bridge HTA results to policy decision-making was under discussion and construction presently. Nevertheless purely scientific assessment was emphasized to maintain its entirely objective standpoint of the HTA. Otherwise bias or policy leading will happened and the accountability of the HTA in Taiwan will be lost. 2. Aspect of the regulation envirement:Whether explicit law and regulation wanted for the endorsement of HTA mechanism had debates with different thoughts and rationales. Study revealed that affecting with political order has been the most efficiency way presently. However in the long run law or regulation will be desired as the HTA environment been established and society consensus been attained. Considering the modes of legislation on matter single legislation, attended to current law, or graduated from soft guidance to consolidated law all were sufficient. 3. Aspect of the executing model: The most significant requirements to HTA executing models and HTA reports were scientific, transparency, justice and accountability. SOPs of HTA research were recommended to set up as the environment of HTA conduction in Taiwan been matured. Accreditation mechanism applied to HTA researcher and HTA institution was also suggested. Field experts to provide professional opinions were crucial owing to the limitation of scientific evidences. For the positioning of HTA experiences from experts will not be wholly replaced by the HTA mechanism, therefore by using experts committee to help for decision making will not be changed in short time. 4. Aspect of the operation planning: In front of shortage of data and expertise in Taiwan one recommendation was to retrieve data from the national health insurance database while models can be explored under different assumptions. Different levels of assessment reports may have their levels of value for references. As experience and capability increased, related database built up and as time moving forward the deficiency of data can be enhanced. In addition to that networking with research institutes domestically and internationally was essential seeing that the extension of resources. Government should lead to coordinate and to integrate related HTA organizations and to invest money for the research of the integration. Incentive scheme to related parities was not suggested right away. More important facets were the transparency and the consistence of the system. If the final consequences of the HTA in Taiwan are predictable and then the industry will have their input. And if good research can be acknowledged by the policy and the impacts on the decision-making can be recognized then the academia and related associations will have their actions. After all powers from different sources will be initialed. It was not necessary to determine self-owned HTA methodology in Taiwan but just followed the global standards because HTA methodologies have developed for a period of time and by this way the results found in Taiwan can be accepted globally. HTA assessment is resources consuming while lots of human resources, time and money required. Since resources are scare the utilization of HTA resources should has its priority setting. A mechanism to have people or basic health care workers to provide health care issues was not been developed in Taiwan. Considering the efficiency of operation whether to design a more transparency mechanism with whole society participation can be considered by the authorities according to the demands in the future. Comprehensive evaluation to the HTA results and routinely assessment to the technologies in uses were also recommended. Plate-form of communication was suggested to construct to invite related parties for discussion and for connection. If opinions can be integrated and the susceptibility from industry can be released then a cooperation foundation can be built. To initial and to chair of the plate-form should be the responsibilities of the authorities. Comprehensive strategic planning including definition of the regulations, establishment of the guidance was critical to the authorities to avoid pieces of decision-making, surprised problems and too much uncertain room occurred. By this way the industry will have unambiguous basis with predictable outcomes to make strategic planning for their innovative medicinal products.
Reference:	2005年生技產業策略諮議委員會會議紀錄 2006年台灣經濟永續發展會議紀錄 2007 Symposium on Health Technology Assessment-- Initiation and International Experience Sharing會議資料 2007日本科技發展——主要科技戰略動向http://news.kantsuu.com/200811/20081114201609_131478_2.shtml （access 2009/03/05） 2007年「開啟台灣醫藥科技評估的新里程碑」研討會會議資料 2007年2月份衛生署高階主管共識營紀錄 2007年衛生政策高峰會議第84次會議紀錄 A new prescription; Pricing drugs（.(A reform plan too far?)）, The Economist, 2007, Feb 24th A Short History of HTA in Europe, EUnetHTA, 2008. Alexander J.B. McEwan, Does Health Technology Assessment Put Patient Care at Risk? Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 46 No. 12 1939, 2005 by Society of Nuclear Medicine Banta D., Pharmaceutical coverage policy in europe, World Health Organization, (EURO) http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:z0zG8RnPwqEJ:www.npojip.org/jip_semina/semina_no3/david-e.pdf+Dunning,+1992,+HTA&cd=3&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=tw （access 2009/03/22） Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s plan to lower health care costs and ensure affordable, accessible health coverage for all http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf （access 2009/06/18） Barrett S., Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. Med Gen Med. 2005; 7(4): 17 Birkett D.J., Mtchell A.S. and McManus P., A cost-effectiveness approach to drug subsidy and pricing in Australia, 2001; 20(3): 104-114. Buxton M, Drummond M, van Hout B.A., Prince R, Shelton T, Szucs T, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997;6:217-227. CADTH Advisory Committees, http://www.acmts.ca/index.php/en/cadth/corporate-profile/advisory-committees （access 2009/03/11） Isaac C. A. and Franceschi A., Evidence to practice & practice to evidence. J. Eval Clin Pract. 2008 October; 14(5): 656–659 Carey D., Herring B. and Lenain P., Economic Department Working Paper No. 665: Health Care Reform in the United States, OECD, Feb6, 2009 CCOHTA 2004-2005 Annual Report. CCOHTA’s transition to the Canadian Health Technology Agency, Five-year Business plan 2005-2011. October 7, 2005. Chen Y. F., HTA process in England-from topic proposal to technology apprasisal and decision making, June 30, 2009演講資料 Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. National Academies Press. 2005 Conard, J. Society, Technology and Risk Assessment. New York: Academic Press. 1980 Cooksey D., A review of UK health research funding, December 2006 Cooksey D., The Cooksey Review, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, March 2007 CRD`s Guidance for Reviews: Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness, 2nd Edition, March 2001 Chua K.P., Overview of the U.S. Health Care System, February 10, 2006, http://www.amsa.org/uhc/HealthCareSystemOverview.pdf （access 2009/06/16） Developing Pharmacy Practice, World Health Organization PSM/PAR. May 2006 Devereaux P J, Scott Beattie W., Choi P.T. L., Badner N. H., How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative β-blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005;331:313-321 Drummond M.F., O’Brien BJ, Stoddart G.L., and Torrance G.W., Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 European network for Health Technology Assessment http://www.eunethta.net/HTA/ （access 2009/03/11） Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman D.E., Berman B., Hadhazy V., "Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?". Int J Technol Assess Health Care . 2001. Volume 17 (4): 457–466. Fischer, F., “Technocracy and Expertise: the Basic Political Question,” Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, 1989, 13-39. Gardner A., Health-Care Reform Could Be Obama`s Toughest Challenge, June 22, 2009, Health Day news Garrido M. V., Kristensen F. B., Nielsen C. P., Busse R., Health technology Assessment and health Policy-making in Europe-Current status, challenges and potential, World Health Organization 2008, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Gibbons, M., Limoges, H., Nowotny, S., Schwartzman, P., Scott, M. “Competitiveness, Collaboration and Globalisation” The New Production of Knowledge – the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, 1994, 111-136. Gonçalves, M. E. “Risk and the Governance of Innovation in Europe: An Introduction.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2005, 73: 1-12. Goodman C. S., Introduction to Health Technology Assessment, National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR), January 2004 http://wwwils.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10103.html （access 2009/03/09） Gross, P. F. Development and implementation of health care technology: the U. S. experience. Inquiry. 1972 Jun; 9(2):34-48. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee, Common Wealth Department of Health and Ageing, September 2002. Harris G., The Evidence Gap: British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs, December 2, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html （access 2009/03/11） Harvey V. Fineberg, Health Technology Assessment for a Globalized World, 2009 HTAi年會演講資料 Healthcare policy in an Obama administration: Delivering on the promise of universal coverage http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/9a205b0b97eb9e50852574fe0014de06 （access 2009/03/18） Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Glossary, INAHTA July 5. 2006 Health Technology Assessment International, http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=49&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=HTA （access 2009/03/05） Health Technology Assessment International, http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=49&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=HTA （access 2009/03/11） Henry D.A., Hill S.R. and Harris A., Drug Prices and Value for Money: The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. JAMA.2005; 294: 2630-2632 Hill S, Garattini S, van Loenhout J, O`Brien BJ, de Joncheere K. Technology appraisal programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, World Health Organization; 2003. Hoppe, R. “Policy Analysis, Science and Politics: From ‘Speaking Truth to Power’ to ‘Making Sense Together’.” Science and Public Policy, 1999. 26(3): 201-210. Hutton J., Health Technology Assessment in an international perspective, York Health Economic Consortium, 2009 International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, INAHTA, http://www.inahta.org （access 2009/03/08） International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research http://www.ispor.org/ （access 2009/03/06） IQWiG –Institute for quality and efficiency in health care http://www.iqwig.de/index.2.en.html （access 2009/03/21） IRPMA「醫療科技評估」座談會會議紀錄函（發文日期2008年5月9日） Irwin, A. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development.1995 ISPOR 3th Medicinal Economic Newspaper – September 15, 2008 Jacques O., Overview of health technology assessment in France, International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2004 vol. 20, pp. 25-34 Jasanoff, S. The Fifth Branch: Science Adviser as Policymakers. 1990 Ma C. A., Challenge and Reform in US Health Care, June 26, 2009演講資料 Marcus A. and Goldstein A., Pfizer Worries Over Drug Studies as Obama Weighs Health Changes, March 5, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3af5yLmP3XE （access 2009/03/08） Martin, D. L. Health technology evaluation in the U.S.: the N.I.H. Consensus Development Program. Dimens Health Serv. 1981 Apr; 58(4):9. Menon, D. and Marshall, D. The internationalization of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 Winter; 12(1):45-51. Nakayama, T., Budgell, B. & Tsutani, K., Confusion About the Concept of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Japan: On the Way to a Social Consensus, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2003, 15(4), 359-360 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence - 2006/7 Annual Report; 2007. News release from the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, http://www.ncchta.org/news/newsitem110309.shtml（access 2009/03/05） NICE：How we work, http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/how_we_work.jsp （access 2009/03/05） NICE：our guidance sets the standard for good health care http://www.nice.org.uk/media/888/38/ourguidancesetsstandard.pdf （access 2009/03/12） NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme –Annual Report 2006; 2007. O`Brien, M. Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment. The MIT Press. 2000 OECD Health Data 2006, June 2006 OECD Health Data 2008, December, 2008 PBAC role. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-overview.htm （access 2009/03/10） PBAC：History of the Department http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-history.htm（access 2009/03/21） Pear R., New York Times: U.S. to Compare Treatments Published. 2009, February 15, http://www.coalition4healthcare.org/fs/global:module/xq6x80cazfxil6/article/list/release.php?id=xs6mokrhcd97k0 （access 2009/03/12） Perry, S. Technology assessment in health care: the U.S. perspective. Health Policy. 1988; 9(3):317-24. PMPRB 2006 Annual Report Raftery J., Hanney S., Green C., Buxton M., Assessing the impact of England’s National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2009, 25:1, 1–5. Rehnqvist N. Bringing HTA into practice in Sweden.; Health Technology Assessment International. Meeting, 2005 Rusilawati J. Health technology assessment in Malaysia. Annu Meet of International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Meeting. 1997; 13: 104. Rutgers, M R. and Mentzel, M A. “Scientific Expertise and Public Policy: Resolving Paradoxes?” Science and Public Policy, 1999. 26(3): 146-150. Sawicki P. T., IQWiG - Institute for quality and efficiency in health care http://www.inahta.org/Members/IQWiG/ （access 2009/03/21） Sivalal S, Rusilawati J. Health technology assessment in Malaysia. Annu Meet of International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Meeting. 1997; 13: 104. Sivalal S. HTA Asian Network: challenges and opportunities for capacity building. Health Technology Assessment International. Meeting, Ital J Public Health. 2005; 2: 53. Taiwan Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research http://www.taspor.org/ （access 2009/03/08） The Impact of IQWiG on the German Pharmaceutical Market, ISPOR Connections 2008 14(1):4-5 Tsutani K., Clinical practice guideline on the web in Japan: From professional freedom to professional and patient autonomy. The 3rd Asia Pacific Conference on Evidence-based Medicine, 2005 Turner E. H., Matthews A. M., Linardatos E., Tell R. A., and Rosenthal R., Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy, January, 2008, NEJM, Volume 358:252-260 UK National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme, 2003. http://www.ncchta.org/about/index.shtml （access 2009/03/11） Understanding Health Technology Assessment, HTA, Health Equality Europe.2009 Wagstaff, A., QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off”, Journal of health economics, 1991. vol.10, pp.21-41. Well. P., Health care and the Medical Engineering Phoenix, Science. 1999. 12(4):15-21 WHO manual Drug and Therapeutic Committee: A Practice Guide , 2004 Yang B. M., 第三屆ISPOR會議演講資料, 2008 九十二年度國家衛生研究院計畫執行成果暨績效檢討報告王榮德等, 以合乎成本效果之臨床指引達成民眾、健保與醫界的三贏局面, 2007. 台灣醫界雜誌, Vol.50, No.5, p.234-239 以藥物經濟學證據作為健保給付參考,台灣新生報《社論》, 2008年9月10日台灣藥物經濟評估方法學相關指南Guidelines of Methodological Standards for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (草案), 台灣藥物經濟暨效果研究學會2008年9月考試院研究發展委員會專題研究報告彙編(三) http://www.exam.gov.tw/ebook/ssub_list.asp?Vcode=1001&Vcode1=1004&Rnd=0.761 （access 2009/03/14）周桂田, 新興風險治理典範之芻議, 國家發展研究所政治與社會哲學評論, 第二十二期、179-233頁林水龍等, 參加美國健康照護品質協會（National Association for Healthcare Quality）第31次年會出國報告, 2006年林明珠, 杜安琇, 法國藥價政策與管理制度考察報告, 2009年花費過高,英國健保不給付部分腎臟癌藥品, 駐英國台北代表處科技組摘譯自: Pharmaceutical Business review, The Telegraph, The Guardian website http://uk.nsc.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=0971028007&ctNode=618&lang=C （access 20090305）侯勝茂, 台灣醫療科技評估之建立與執行。行政院衛生署民國92年委託研究計畫美加藥價戰開打，美國藥自加拿大回籠本土. 大紀元報. 2003,09,30 http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/3/9/30/n385484.htm （access 2009/03/12）張明貴, 政策分析, 五南出版社. 1998 張鴻仁、黃文鴻等人,健康經濟學國際學會第四屆世界研討會出國報告, 2003年陳振明, 公共政策分析, 中國人民大學出版社. 2002 陳時中、陳如如等人, 參訪加拿大衛生部、CADTH及PMPRB出國報告書, 2007年陳潔, 新時期中國衛生技術評估的挑戰, ISPOR第三屆亞太會議演講資料, 2008 評估台灣推行醫療科技評估(HTA)制度於全民健康保險新藥收載之可行模式—以國外經驗為例研究報告, 2006年黃紀等人, 政治學學門成就評估報告, 人文與社會科學簡訊, 2000, 3(2), 47-51 楊漢泉等, 醫療品質管理學, 華杏出版社, 2007年蒲若芳, 社區性肝癌篩檢之成本效益評估研究-電腦模擬模式之運用。臺灣大學公共衛生研究所碩士論文，1993年劉見祥, 出席第33屆國際社會福利協會全球會議報告, 2008年劉見祥, 陳燕惠. 加拿大醫療科技評估制度及新藥支付制度出國報告, 2006年劉見祥, 黃文鴻等人, 韓國及日本藥品支付制度考察報告, 2005年劉見祥等人,健康經濟學國際學會(iHEA)第五屆世界研討會出國報告, 2005年蔡勝男, 公共行政治理模式的研究：歷史詮釋分析的觀點, T&D飛訊第34期.1995 賴冠郎, 新醫療科技評估專題研討會演講資料, April, 2009 臨床診療指引發展手冊, 財團法人國家衛生研究院, 財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會, 九十二年度中央健康保險局委託研究計畫魏鏞, 公共政策導論, 五南出版社. 2004 藥價低吸引美國人，加拿大"治"藥有良方. 經濟參考報, 2007,04,17 http://www.sina.net （access 2009/03/10）譚延輝, 謝淑卿, 拜訪韓國Health Technology Assessment (HTA) 相關之政府單位、學及產業界代表及參加Korean Association of Health Technology Assessment (KAHTA) International Symposium會議出國報告書, 2007年譚延輝, 蒲若芳. 參加第六屆HTAi年會研討會出國報告書, 2009
Description:	碩士國立政治大學科技管理研究所 95359036 97
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095359036
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Technology and Innovation Management] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
903601.pdf		134Kb	Adobe PDF2	1408	View/Open
90362.pdf		2304Kb	Adobe PDF2	3583	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...