Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-fxdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:12:11.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationing Medical Technology

Hospital Decision Making in the United States and England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ann Lennarson Greer
Ann Lennarson Greer
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes medical technology decision making in the United States and England in terms of the appropriateness of different decision-making models to the organization and delivery of medical care, and to the rationing of technology among and within hospitals. It examines the effect on the American hospital of prospective payment programs from the perspective of organizational structure and decision making. The strategies of central control and specification which characterize these programs are contrasted with decision-making procedures in the English National Health Service, which have emphasized decentralization, delegation, and consensus. The analysis suggests that decentralized models of decision making are more supportive of essential elements of medical care including doctor-patient trust and professional responsibility and are more able to achieve rationing decisions which are compatible with professional and consumer preferences.

Type
Special Section: The Organization and Use of Technology in the Hospital Part I: Social, Economic, and Political Issues
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 199 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Aaron, H. J., & Schwartz, W. B.The painful prescription: Rationing hospital care. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1984.Google Scholar
2.Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L.Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1961.Google Scholar
3.Berenson, R. A.Capitation and conflict of interest. Health Affairs, 1986, 5, 141–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Bull, M. J. Implementation of DRG prospective reimbursement: Health care providers' response. Ph.D. Dissertation, Urban Social Institutions Ph.D. Program University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 1986.Google Scholar
5.Child, J., & Kieser, A. Organization and managerial roles in British and West German companies: An examination of the culture-free thesis. In Lammers, C. J. & Hick-son, D. J. (eds.) Organizations alike and unlike: Inter-institutional studies in the sociology of organizations. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979, 251–271.Google Scholar
6.Clark, P. Culture context as a determinant of organizational rationality: A comparison of the tobacco industries in Britain and France. In Lammers, C. J. & Hickson, D. J. (eds.) Organizations alike and unlike: Inter-institutional studies in the sociology of organizations. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979, 251–271.Google Scholar
7.Department of Health and Social Security. Patients first. ISBN 0 11 320720 4; London: HMSO, 1979.Google Scholar
8.Dill, W. R. Business organizations. In March, J. G. (ed.) Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965, 1087.Google Scholar
9.Earickson, R.The spatial behavior of hospital patients: A behavioral approach to spatial interaction in metropolitan Chicago. University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 124, 1970.Google Scholar
10.Elling, R. The hospital support game in urban center. In Freidson, E., The hospital in modern society. New York: The Free Press, 1963.Google Scholar
11.Flexner, A.Is social work a profession? Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1915, 576–581.Google Scholar
12.Fox, R.Experiment perilous. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959.Google Scholar
13.Fox, R. Medical evolution. In Essays in medical sociology. New York: John Wiley, 1979.Google Scholar
14.Freidson, E.Professional dominance: The social structure of medical care. Chicago: Aldine, 1970, 199–206.Google Scholar
15.Freidson, E.Profession of medicine: A study in the sociology applied knowledge. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.Google Scholar
16.Gallagher, E. B.The doctor-patient relationship. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78–183.Google Scholar
17.Ginzberg, E.The limits of reform: The search for realism. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
18.Goode, W. J.Encroachment, charlatanism, and the emerging professions: Psychology, sociology and medicine. American Sociological Review, 1960, 25, 902–914.Google Scholar
19.Greer, A. L.Adoption of medical technology: The hospital's three decision systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Greer, A. L. Medical conservatism and technological acquisitiveness: The paradox of hospital technology adoptions. In Roth, J. & Ruzak, S. (eds.) Research in the sociology of health care, vol. 4.: The Adoption and social consequences of medical technologies. Greenwich, CT, 1986, 185–235.Google Scholar
21.Greer, A. L.Medical technology and professional dominance theory. Social Science and Medicine, 1984, 18, 809–817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Greer, S. Professional self-regulation in the public interest: The intellectual politics of PSRO. In Greer, S. (ed.) Conference on professional self-regulation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHEW Publications No. (HRA) 77–621, 95–108.Google Scholar
23.Greer, S.Social organization. New York: Random House, 1955, 1–4.Google Scholar
24.Grusky, O., & Miller, G. A.The sociology of organizations: Basic studies. New York: Basic Books, 1981.Google Scholar
25.Jaco, E. G. (ed.). Patients, physicians and illness: A sourcebook in behavioral science and medicine. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1958.Google Scholar
26.Jennet, B.High technology medicine: Benefits and burdens, new ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
27.Levitt, R., & Wall, A.The reorganized national health service, 3rd edition. Dover, NH: Croom Helm, 1984.Google Scholar
28.Mechanic, D.Future issues in health care. New York: Free Press, 1979.Google Scholar
29.Mechanic, D.The growth of bureaucratic medicine: An inquiry into the dynamics of patient behavior and the organization of medical care. New York: Free Press, 1976.Google Scholar
30.Parsons, T. Reflections on the problem of psychosomatic relationships in health and illness; In Social structure and personality. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1964, 112–126, 255–358.Google Scholar
31.Parsons, T. Illness and the role of the physician: A sociological perspective. In Kluckhohn, C., Murray, H. A., & Schneider, D. M. (eds.) Personality in nature, society and culture. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953.Google Scholar
32.Perrow, C. Goals and power structures: A historical case study. In Freidson, E. (ed.) The hospital in modern society. New York: The Free Press, 1963.Google Scholar
33.Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H.In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run companies, New York: Harper and Row, 1982.Google Scholar
34.Schulz, R., & Harrison, S.Consensus management in the British National Health Service. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 1984, 62, 657–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Stevens, R. Comparisons in health care: Britain as contrast to the United States. In Mechanic, D. (ed.) Handbook of health, health care, and the health professions. New York: The Free Press, 1983, 281–304.Google Scholar
36.Stinchcomb, A.Bureaucratic and craft administration of production. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1959, 4, 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Stocking, B.Expensive medical techniques. Report of the Council for Science and Society. London: Calvert's Press, 1982, 18.Google Scholar
38.Taylor, F. W.Scientific management. Copyright 1911 by Taylor, F. W.; New York: Harper and Row, 1947.Google Scholar
39.Thomas, L.The youngest science: Notes of a medicine-watcher. New York: Viking Press, 1983.Google Scholar