The rising cost of medical care in the United States is a problem generally familiar to all interested in health care policy. In recent years the contribution of technology to this rising cost has been debated. The computed tomography (CT) scanner has come to exemplify the problem of “technology run wild.” The scanner was introduced into the United States in 1973 and has diffused rapidly into virtually every area of the country. However, despite the large number of scanners, they are maldistributed by institutional setting and geographic location.
A number of Federal policies have been developed to deal with medical technology. The case of the CT scanner illustrates the failure of these policies. The CT scanner was not well evaluated before it diffused into practice, and it appears that Federal reimbursement policy facilitated its spread. Federal policies designed to slow diffusion or to assure optimal placement or wise use of scanners have not had demonstrable effects. The case of the CT scanner suggests the need to alter Federal policies toward medical technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Policy Implications of the Computed Tomography (CT) Scanner. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.
2.
AbramsH.McNeilB.Medical implications of computed tomography (“CT Scanning”). N. Engl. J. Med.298: 255–261 and 310–318, 1978.
3.
CreditorM. C.GarrettJ. B.The information base for diffusion of technology: Computed tomography scanning. N. Engl. J. Med.297: 49–52, 1977.
4.
KaluznyA. D.Innovation in health services: Theoretical framework and review of research. Health Serv. Res.9: 101–120, 1974.
5.
GordonG.FisherG. L.The Diffusion of Medical Technology. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
6.
Census bureau releases 1977 state population estimates—Trends of early decade appear to be continuing. United States Department of Commerce News. Washington, D.C., 1977.
7.
Health Resources Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Determination of population of Health Service Areas. Federal Register43: 40918–40920, September 13, 1978.
8.
American Hospital Association. Guide to the Health Care Field. Chicago, 1978.
9.
American Medical Association. Directory of Approved Residencies, 1974–1975. Chicago, 1975.
10.
JonssonE.Letter. TV. Engl. J. Med.299: 665–666, 1978.
11.
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. The Computerized Tomographic (CA T) Scanner Market in the 1970's. New York, 1976.
12.
News. Mod. Health Care7: 25, 1977.
13.
SchwartzH.The government puts a damper on the scanner bonanza. New York Times, December 18, 1977.
14.
ReinoldD. A.Are mobile CT scanners in your hospital's future?Hospitals53: 60–65, 1979.
15.
RussellL. B.BurkeV. S.Technological Diffusion in the Hospital Sector. National Planning Association, Washington, D.C., 1975.
16.
This information was acquired by the author while visiting governmental departments of health in a number of European countries during the summer of 1978.
17.
EvensR. G.JostR. G.Economic analysis of body computed tomography units including data on utilization. Radiology127: 151–155, 1978.
18.
J. Lloyd Johnson Associates. The Demand for Computed Tomography and Impact on Diagnostic Imaging Market. Northfield, Ill., 1976.
19.
FinebergH. V.BaumanR.SosmanM.Computerized cranial tomography, effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA238: 224–227, 1977.
20.
AmbroseJ.GoodingM. R.E.M.I. scan in the management of head injuries. Lancet1: 847–849, 1976.
21.
National Center for Health Statistics, Health Resources Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Utilization of Short-Stay Hospitals: Annual Summary for the United States, 1975. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 13, Number 31. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication #HRA-77-1782. Rockville, Md., 1977.
22.
LarsonE. B.OmennG. S.LoopJ. W.Computed tomography of the brain in patients with cerebrovascular disease: Impact of a new technology on patient care. Am. J. Roentgenol.131: 35–40, 1978.
23.
AldersonP. L.MikhaelM.ColemanR. E.GadoM.Optimal utilization of computerized cranial tomography and radionuclide brain imaging. Neurology26: 803–815, 1976.
24.
CarerraG. F.GersonD. E.SchnurJ.McNeilB. J.Computed tomography of the brain in patients with headache or temporal lobe epilepsy: Findings and cost-effectiveness. J. Computer-Assisted Tomography1: 1–4, 1977.
25.
WarnerK. E.Treatment decision making in catastrophic illness. Med. Care15: 19–33, 1977.
26.
RussellL. B.Technology in Hospitals, Medical Advances and Their Diffusion. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1978.
27.
RapoportJ.Diffusion of technological innovation among nonprofit firms: A case study of radioisotopes in U.S. hospitals. J. Econ. Bus.30: 108–118, 1978.
28.
KaluznyA. D.VeneyJ. E.GentryJ. T.Innovation in health services; A comparative study of hospitals and health departments. Milbank Mem. Fund Q. 52: 51–82, 1974.
29.
WillemsJ. S.The Relationship Between the Diffusion of Medical Technology and the Organization and Economics of Health Care Delivery. Paper presented at the Conference on Medical Technology, West Palm Beach, Fla., December 10–12, 1978. (To be published by the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.).
30.
CromwellJ.GinsbergP.HamiltonD.SummerM.Incentives and Decisions Underlying Hospitals' Adoption of Major Capital Equipment. ABT Associates, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
31.
KaluznyA. D.VeneyJ. E.Attributes of health services as factors in program implementation. J. Health Soc. Behav.14: 124–133, 1973.
32.
KaluznyA. D.BarhyteD. Y.ReaderG. G.Health systems, pp. 29–43. In The Diffusion of Medical Technology, edited by GordonG.FisherG. L., Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
