Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:48:00.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Medical Technology in The United States: The Last Decade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Louise B. Russell
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Jane E. Sisk
Affiliation:
Office of Technology Assessment

Abstract

This paper reviews the evolution of U.S. policy toward medical technology in areas such as cost containment, regulation of devices and drugs, and third party reimbursement. In addition the authors chronicle the diffusion of major medical technologies, procedures, and organizational innovations in the United States. Finally, the article provides tentative observations on the effect of recent policy changes and concludes with some recommendations for the future.

Type
Special Section: Health Care Systems and the Diffusion of Technology, Part I
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

American Cancer Society. A study of women's awareness and use of mammograms. 02, 1987.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Newsletter, 06 1983.Google Scholar
American Hospital Association. Hospital Statistics. Chicago, Ill.: Annual Issues 1976 through 1986.Google Scholar
American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Board of Directors. Guidelines for use of total parenteral nutrition in the hospitalized adult patient. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1986, 10, 441445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athey, P. A., & Hadlock, F. P.Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. St. Louis: Mosby, 1985.Google Scholar
Banta, H. D., Ruby, G., & Burns, A. K. Using coverage policy to contain medicare costs. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Medicare, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 02 1, 1984.Google Scholar
Behney, C. J., & Sisk, J. E.Organ transplantation, medical technology assessment and resource allocation. Connecticut Medicine, 1984, 48, 797800.Google ScholarPubMed
Coelen, C., & Sullivan, D. An analysis of the effects of prospective reimbursement programs on hospital expenditures. Health Care Financing Review, 1981, Winter, 140.Google Scholar
Cromwell, J., & Kanak, J. R.The effects of prospective reimbursement programs on hospital adoption and service sharing. Health Care Financing Review, 1982, 4, 6788.Google ScholarPubMed
CVS latest news. Division of Medical Genetics, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 01 21, 1986, 45.Google Scholar
Davis, J. High-tech medicine heads for the malls. Business Week, 1986, 70.Google Scholar
Demlo, L. K., Hammons, G. T., Kuder, J. M., Rodgers, S. et al. , Decisionmaking byMedicare contractors for coverage of medical technologies. Prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, 10 1983.Google Scholar
Detsky, A., & Jeejeebhoy, K. N.Cost-effectiveness of preoperative parenteral nutrition in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1984, 8, 632637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Detsky, A., McLaughlin, J. R., Abrams, H. B. et al. , A cost-utility analysis of the home parenteral nutrition program at Toronto General Hospital: 1970–1982. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1986, 10, 4957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, H. V., Scadden, D., & Goldman, L.Care of patients with a low probability of acute myocardial infarction: Cost effectiveness of alternatives to coronary-care-unit admission. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 1301–07.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, L. M. Computers improve the fit of artificial joints. New York Times, 04 1, 1987, D8.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. G., & Greenberg, W. The health maintenance organization and its effects on competition. Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 07 1977.Google Scholar
Guterman, S., & Dobson, A.Impact of the Medicare prospective payment system for hospitals. Health Care Financing Review, 1986, 7, 97114.Google ScholarPubMed
Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Research, personal communication, 1986.Google Scholar
Henderson, J., President, SMG Marketing, personal communication, 1986.Google Scholar
Herrmann, J., & Opitz, J. M. Genetic counseling. Postgraduate Medicine, 1980, 67, 233243.Google Scholar
InterStudy. National HMO Census 1985. Excelsior, MN, 1986.Google Scholar
InterStudy. 1986 June update: A mid-year report on HMO growth. Excelsior, MN, no date.Google Scholar
Kidder, D., & Sullivan, D.Hospital payroll costs, productivity, and employment under prospective reimbursement. Health Care Financing Review, 1982, 4, 89100.Google ScholarPubMed
Kosterlitz, J. Picking up the tab. National Journal, 07 26, 1986, 18251828.Google Scholar
Knaus, W. A., Draper, E. A., & Wagner, D. P.The use of intensive care: New research initiatives and their implications for national health policy. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1983, 61, 561583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luft, H. S.Assessing the evidence on HMO performance. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1980, 58, 501535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luft, H. S.Health maintenance organizations. Dimensions of performance. New York: Wiley, 1981.Google Scholar
Medicine and Health, 07 8, 1985, 39, no. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medicine and Health, 10 20, 1986, 40, no. 41.Google Scholar
Medicine and Health, 01 5, 1987, 41, no. 1.Google Scholar
Medicine and Health, 02 2, 1987, 41, no. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, R. Jr, & Schlenker, R. E. HMOs, competition, and the government. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1975, Spring, 195224.Google Scholar
Medical Devices, Diagnostics and Instrumentation, 05 26, 1986, 12, no. 21.Google Scholar
Mulley, A. G. Jr, Shock-wave lithotripsy: Assessing a slam-bang technology. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 845847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Association for Home Care. Home care fact sheet. Washington, DC, 04 1986, 15.Google Scholar
National Hospice Organization. 1986 guide to the nation's hospices. Rosslyn, VA, 06 1986.Google Scholar
“Heart bypasses are often unnecessary.” New York Times, 03 10, 1977.Google Scholar
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Technical appendixes to the report and recommendations to the Secretary, US. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DCM: GPO, 04 1, 1985.Google Scholar
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Report and recommendations to the Secretary, US. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: GPO, 04 1, 1986.Google Scholar
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Technical appendixes to the report and recommendations to the Secretary, US. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: GPO, 04 1, 1986.Google Scholar
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Medicare prospective payment and the American health care system: Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: GPO, 02 1987.Google Scholar
Reeder, G. S., Krishan, I., Nobrega, F. T. et al. , Is percutaneous coronary angioplasty less expensive than bypass surgery? New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 11571162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romeo, A. A., Wagner, J. L., & Lee, R. H.Prospective reimbursement and the diffusion of new technologies in hospitals. Journal of Health Economics, 1984, 3, 124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, L. B.The diffusion of new hospital technologies in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 1976, 6, 557579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, L. B.Technology in hospitals: Medical advances and their djffusion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepe, S. J., Marks, J. S., Oakley, G. P., & Manley, A. F.Delivery of genetic services in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1982, 248, 1733–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisk, J. E. Medicare payment for physician services: The capitation option. Presented to the American Economic Association, New Orleans, 12 29, 1986.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. B. Full circle: The return of certificate of need regulation of health facilities to state control. Indiana Law Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Sloan, F. A.Regulation and the rising cost of hospital care. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1981, 63, 479487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State Medicaid Information Center. A catalogue of state Medicaid program changes. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association, 1986.Google Scholar
Steinberg, E. P., Sisk, J. E., & Locke, K. E.The diffusion of magnetic resonance imagers in the United States and worldwide. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985a, 1, 499514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, E. P., Sisk, J. E., & Locke, K. E.X-ray, CT and magnetic resonance imaging: Diffusion patterns and policy issues. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985b, 313, 859864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Task Force on Organ Transplantation. Organ transplantation: Issues and recommendations. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Resources and Services Administration, 04 1986.Google Scholar
Technology Reimbursement Reports. Heart transplant center selection criteria. 10 24, 1986; 2 (43), 10.Google Scholar
Technology Reimbursement Reports. Medical coverage reviews should include cost-effectiveness, ethical, social considerations, report says, 11 21, 1986; 2, 25.Google Scholar
Terry, A. C., Friedman, E., Leske, M. C. et al. , Cataract surgery in the 80's. Unpublished paper. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Committee on Ophthalmic Procedures Assessment, Washington, DC, 02 16, 1985.Google Scholar
Thomsen, D. E. Plasma physics breaks stones. Science News, 1986, 130, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Policy implications of the computed tomography (CT) scanner. Washington, DC: GPO, 09 1978.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Medical technology under proposals to increase competition in health care. Washington, DC: GPO, 10 1982.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Federal policies and the medical devices industry. Washington, DC: GPO, 10 1984a.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Medical technology and costs of the Medicare program. Washington, DC: GPO, 07 1984b.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Payment for physician services: Strategies for Medicare. Washington, DC: GPO, 02 1986a.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Effects of federal policies on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Health Technology Case Study 36. Washington, DC: GPO, 05 1986b.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. Medicare: Past overuse of intensive care services inflates hospital payments. Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: GPO, 03 1986.Google Scholar
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. Detailed diagnoses and surgical pro cedures for patients discharged from short-stay hospitals, United States, 1979. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 82–1274–1. Public Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology. Hyattsville, Maryland, 01 1982.Google Scholar
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. Detailed diagnoses and procedures for patients discharged from short-stay hospitals, United States, 1984. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 13, No. 86. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 86–1747. Public Health Service. Washington, DC: GPO, 04 1986.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Critical care medicine. Consensus Development Conference Summary, vol. 4, no. 6. Washington, DC: GPO, 1983.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging in pregnancy. NIH Consensus Development Conference, Consensus Statement, vol. 5, no. 1, NIH Pub. No. 84–667, 1984.Google Scholar
U.S. Public Health Service. The 1990 health objectives for the nation: A midcourse review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 11, 1986.Google Scholar
Wennberg, J. E., McPherson, K., & Caper, P.Will payment based on Diagnosis-Related Groups control hospital costs? New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 295300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willems, J. S., Banta, H. D., Lukas, T. A., & Taylor, C. A. The computed tomography (CT) scanner. In Altman, S. & Blendon, R. (eds.), Medical technology: The culprit behind health care costs? DHEW Publ. No. (PHS) 79–3216. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Services Research and Bureau of Health Planning, 1979.Google Scholar
Worthington, N. L., & Piro, P. A.The effects of hospital rate-setting programs on volumes of hospital services: A preliminary analysis. Health Care Financing Review, 1982, 4, 4766.Google ScholarPubMed
Young, F. E. Statement before the Subcommittee on Health and Long-Term Care, Select Committee on Aging, U.S. House of Representatives, 07 19, 1985.Google Scholar