Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:26:30.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology and Primary Care in the United States: A Challenge for Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Donald A. Young ,
Wayne I. Roe  and
Michael J. Strauss
Donald A. Young
Affiliation:
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission, Washington, DC
Wayne I. Roe
Affiliation:
Health Technology Associates, Washington, DC
Michael J. Strauss
Affiliation:
Health Technology Associates, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article examines technology in primary care and its implications for technology assessment. Following an overview of the primary care setting and the importance of medical technology to primary care providers, the article identifies the new decisionmakers in medicine who both direct and respond to technological change in primary care, focusing, in particular, on their needs for information on primary care technologies. Furthermore, new methodologic issues for technology assessors are posed and examined. Finally, the authors offer conclusions about the need for changes in technology assessment and speculate about its future in primary care.

Type
Special Section: Technology in Primary Care and Ambulatory Settings
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 9 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

1.Aiken, L. H., Lewis, C. E., Craig, J. et al. , The contribution of specialists to the delivery of primary care. A new perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 300, 1363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.American Medical Association.Trends and variations in the utilization of physicians' services in the last decade. Chicago, IL: Department of Medical Practice Economics, Center for Health Policy Research, undated.Google Scholar
3.Barnett, H. J. M. et al. , Failure of extracranial–intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 313, 1191–2000.Google Scholar
4.Cohen, C. G. Will the home testing boom be a boon or bust for M.D.s. Group Practice Journal, 03/04, 1985, 30–33.Google Scholar
5.Cunningham, R. M. Jr, Entrepreneurialism in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 309, 1313–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Fetter, R. B., Shin, Y., Freeman, J. L. et al. , Case mix definition by diagnosis related groups. Medical Care, 02 1980, Supplement, 1–53.Google Scholar
7.Finkler, S.The distinction between costs and charges. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1982, 96, 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Freeman, S. A.Megacorporate health care: A choice for the future. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 579–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Health Industry Manufacturers Association.Alternative site providers. An encyclopedia. Washington, DC, 12 1985.Google Scholar
10.Health Industry Manufacturers Association.Alternative site providers. Managing during a period of transition. Washington, DC, 12 1986.Google Scholar
11.Institute of Medicine. National Academy of Sciences.Improving the medical record in light of new technologies [meeting summary]. Washington, DC, 01 5–6, 1986.Google Scholar
12.Koren, M. J.Home care – who cares? New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 917–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Levit, K. R., Lazenby, H., & Waldo, D. R. National health expenditures 1984. Health Care Financing Review, 11 1985, 1–35.Google Scholar
14.Light, D. W.Is competition bad? New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 309, 1315–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.National Association for Ambulatory Care.Second comprehensive ambulatory care industry study. Summary of statistics. Dallas, TX, 04 1985.Google Scholar
16.National Association for Ambulatory Care.Membership standards. Dallas, TX, undated.Google Scholar
17.Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.Medical technology and the costs of the Medicare program. OTA-H-228. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
18.Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.Medical technology under proposals to increase competition in health care. OTA-H-190. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 10 1986.Google Scholar
19.Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.Payment for physician services. OTA-H-294. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 02 1986.Google Scholar
20.Prospective Payment Assessment Commission.Medicare prospective payment and the American health care system. Report to the Congress, Washington, DC: 02 1986.Google Scholar
21.Relman, A. S.The new medical-industrial complex. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 963–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Select Committee on Aging. House of Representatives, United States Congress. The black box of home care quality [Hearing]. Washington, DC: 07 29, 1986.Google Scholar
23.Spiegel, J. S., Rubenstein, L. V., Scott, B., & Brook, R. H.Who is the primary physician? New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 308, 1208–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Steinberg, E. P., & Lawrence, R. S.Where have all the doctors gone? Physician choices between specialty and primary care practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1980, 93, 619–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Tarlov, A. R.Shattuck Lecture. The increasing supply of physicians, the changing structures of the health-services system and the future practice of medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 308, 1235–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.United States Department of Health and Human Services.HHS News, Washington, DC, 07 29, 1986.Google Scholar