Economic evaluation of ezetimibe treatment in combination with statin therapy in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 723-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn M. Davies ◽  
Ami Vyas ◽  
Carl A. Baxter
2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. A437
Author(s):  
KM Clements ◽  
DA Misurski ◽  
J Miller ◽  
ME Skornicki ◽  
GJ Hill ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huan Huang ◽  
Douglas C. A. Taylor ◽  
Robyn T. Carson ◽  
Phil Sarocco ◽  
Mark Friedman ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-71.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudhir K. Unni ◽  
Ruben G.W. Quek ◽  
Joseph Biskupiak ◽  
Vinson C. Lee ◽  
Xiangyang Ye ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 1092-1106
Author(s):  
Lindsay Claxton ◽  
Michelle Jenks ◽  
Matthew Taylor ◽  
Gene Wallenstein ◽  
Alan M. Mendelsohn ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt V. Krueger

Abstract In a recent JFE article, I presented five empirical approaches to identify the personal consumption of earnings made by single persons. I stated that forensic economic estimates of earnings minus personal consumption are relevant to, but do not define, the awardable financial support damages to survivors or estates under the various wrongful death laws in the United States. In a comment on my article, Thomas Ireland has stated that the role of forensic economic evaluation is to only estimate how much financial support single decedents would actually have provided to statutory survivors—which he states is often zero. I present several arguments and facts to show that Ireland's criticisms and concerns are unsupportable.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document