This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:115-116.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

HEALTH CARE expenditures in the United States will have approached 18% of the gross domestic product in 2002, with the costs of pharmaceuticals and hospital costs among the fastest growing segments of health care costs in the last 5 years.^1-3 While many states have sought to control the costs of medications through a variety of means, the state of Oregon, focusing on the Medicaid program,⁴ has moved aggressively to create a "preferred" list of medications based on the costs and effectiveness of different classes of medications used to treat similar conditions.⁵ In so doing, Oregon has adopted a practice used in many European countries of including analyses of costs and cost-effectiveness in the approval, marketing, and pricing of drugs.

As cost analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses become more central to health care policy, it will become increasingly important that we as clinicians and patient advocates understand the strengths and limitations of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Prevention of Herpes Simplex Virus Eye Disease: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis
David R. Lairson, Charles E. Begley, Thomas F. Reynolds, and Kirk R. Wilhelmus
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(1):108-112.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT