Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:27:01.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost Containment and Computerized Medical Imaging

Meeting One Another's Needs?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Judith L. Wagner
Judith L. Wagner
Affiliation:
Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Today, computers are used in several important and fast-growing medical imaging modalities, such as digital subtraction angiography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine, and diagnostic ultrasound. The ultimate test for the computer in medical imaging will be its ability to replace traditional film-based radiography as the mechanism for displaying, communicating, and storing imaging information. This transition will require radiologists and other imagers to accept information in digital form. The speed of that acceptance depends on the economic incentives of the health care system. These are changing as a result of cost containment, which is moving away from fee-for-service toward bundled payment. The increase in capitated health plans will encourage the development of digital radiography systems that realistically trade-off the perceived quality needs of radiologists with the costs of producing and operating such systems.

Type
Special Section: The Organization and Use of Technology in the Hospital Part II: Case Studies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 343 - 353
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.AT&T, Commview, Publication PM-4390. Holmdel, NJ: AT&T, 1986.Google Scholar
2.Brink, J. V., What radiologists say about PACS. AJR, 02 1986, 146, 419–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Capp, M. P., Roehrig, H., & Seeley, G., et al. Digital radiology department of the future. Radiologie Clinics of North America, 06 1985, 23, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Collier, B. D., Youker, J., & Philps, M., et al. A study of the diagnostic imaging needs of community hospitals in Wisconsin. Milwaukee: Medical College of Wisconsin, June, 1984.Google Scholar
5.Curtis, D. J., Gayler, B. W., & Gitlin, J. N., et al. Teleradiology: Results of a field trial. Radiology, 1983, 149, 415–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Drew, P. G. Picture archiving and communication systems. In Hospital Technology Series, vol. 4, no. 16. Chicago: American Hospital Association, 1985.Google Scholar
7.Dwyer, S. J., Templeton, A. W., & Martin, N. L., et al. The cost of managing digital diagnostic images. Radiology, 07 1982, 144, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Foley, W. D., & Milde, M.Intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. Radiologie Clinics of North America, 06 1985, 23, 293–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Fraser, R. G., Breatnach, E., & Barnes, G. T.Digital radiography of the chest: Clinical experience with a prototype unit. Radiology, 1983, 148, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Gitlin, J. N. Teleradiology. Radiologic clinics of North America: Use of computers in radiology, 03 1986, 24, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hess, T. P.Outpatient MRI centers struggle for survival. Diagnostic Imaging, 04 1986, 94–99.Google Scholar
12.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S.The diffusion of MRI: Patterns of siting and ownership in an era of changing incentives. AJR, 05 1986, 146, 963–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Hindel, R.Review of optical storage technology for archiving digital medical images. Radiology, 10 1986, 161, 257–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Integrated diagnostics update. Milwaukee: General Electric Company, 1986.Google Scholar
15.Intergovernmental Health Policy Project (IHPP), The George Washington University, Major changes in state Medicaid and indigent care programs, July 1985. Washington, DC: IHPP, 1985.Google Scholar
16.James, A. E., Carroll, F., & Pickens, D. R., et al. Medical image management. Radiology, 09 1986, 160, 847–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Jencks, S. F., & Dobson, A.Strategies for reforming Medicare's physician payments: Physician diagnosis-related groups and other approaches. New England Journal of Medicine, 06 6, 1985, 312 23, 1492–1499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Johnson, C., Dannelly, N., & Raim, C.Processing alternatives for digital chest imaging. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 06 1985, 23, 335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Johnson, J. L., & Abernathy, D. L.Diagnostic imaging procedure volume in the United States. Radiology, 03 1983, 146, 851–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Kundel, H. L.Digital projection radiography of the chest. Radiology, 01 1986, 158, 274–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Mitchell, J. B.Physician DRGs. New England Journal of Medicine, 09 12, 1985, 313(11), 670–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Mowen, D. L., & Kerlin, B. D. Rural health technology demonstrations and evaluation: An overview and annotated bibliography. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation, December, 1980, MTR-80w 189.Google Scholar
23.Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress, Diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) and the Medicare program: Implications for medical technology, OTA-TM-H-17 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.Google Scholar
24.Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress, Medicare's prospecctive payment system: Strategies for evaluating costs, quality and medical technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October, 1985.Google Scholar
25.Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress, Strategies for Medical Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
26.Ovitt, T., & J., NewellII. Digital subtraction angiography: Technology, equipment and techniques. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 06 1985, 23, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Safer x-rays with two new systems. Medical World News, 12 23, 1985, 26, 56.Google Scholar
28.Seeley, G., & J., NewellII. The use of psychophysical principles in design of a total digital radiology department. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 06 1985, 23, 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.The radiology market: What's hot, what's not. Hospitals, 10 5, 1986, 88–111.Google Scholar
30.Tracy, E. J.Digital diagnoses. Fortune, 07 22, 1985, 69–70.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Weinstein, M.Imaging studies down overall, but new modalities show increase. Radiology Management, 01 1986, 8, 15–16.Google ScholarPubMed
32.Whitney, S. Office of Health Maintenance Organizations, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, personal communication, January 1986.Google Scholar