Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:04:42.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deciding to Buy Expensive Technology: The Case of Biliary Lithotripsy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Saul N. Weingart
Saul N. Weingart
Affiliation:
Beth Israel Hospital, Boston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

Acquiring expensive, new medical technology requires an evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness, safety, profitability, feasibility, and risk of a project in the context of the hospital's social responsibility and institutional strategy. A case study of the decision to bring biliary lithotripsy to Strong Memorial Hospital illustrates how these criteria offer managers a coherent approach to difficult and consequential decisions about acquiring medical technology.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 301 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.Banta, H. D., & Luce, B. R.Health care technology and its assessment: An international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Berkowitz, D. A.Strategic technology management. Healthcare Forum Journal, 1989, 32, 14–16, 18–20.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Bucci, V. A., Reiss, J. B., & Hall, N. C.New obstacles in the path of marketing new medical devices: The stream of regulation. Journal of Health Care Technology, 1985, 2, 81–96.Google Scholar
4.Computerized pump developed to inject gallstone solvent. Scanner, 1988 (07), 7–9.Google Scholar
5.Cotton, P.Determining more good than harm is not easy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 272, 153–58.Google Scholar
6.Ell, C., Kerzel, W., Heyder, N., et al. Piezoelectric lithotripsy of gallstones. Lancet, 1987, 2, 1149–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Falkson, J. L., & Leavitt, H.Strategic planning and hospitals: A business perspective. Hospitals, 1982, 56, 51–56.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Feinberg, H. V.Evaluation of computed tomography: Achievement and challenge. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1978, 131, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Feinberg, H. V., Wittenberg, J., Ferrucci, J. T. Jr., et al. The clinical value of body computed tomography over time and technological change. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1983, 141, 1067–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Gallstone contact dissolution is another alternative to surgery. Scanner, 1988 (07), 7–9.Google Scholar
11.Hendee, W. R.Technology assessment in medicine: Methods, status, and trends. Medical Progress through Technology, 1991, 17, 69–75.Google Scholar
12.Hendee, W. R.Technology assessment: The contribution of professional organizations. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1990, 154, 647–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Hood, K. A., Dowling, R.H., Keightley, A., Dick, J.A., & Mallinson, C. N.Piezoceramic lithotripsy of gallbladder stones: Initial experience in 38 patients. Lancet, 1988, 1, 1322–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
15.Ishay, R.High technology in medicine: Ethical aspects. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, 1989, 25, 274–78.Google Scholar
16.Jacoby, I.The consensus development program of the National Institutes of Health: Current practices and historical perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 420–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Jennett, B.High-technology medicine, London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1984.Google Scholar
18.Jennings, J. R., & Weinstein, A.Technology assessment: Why hospitals must get serious. Decisions in Imaging Economics, 1991, 4, 31–35.Google Scholar
19.Kane, N. M., & Manoukian, P. D.The effect of the Medicare prospective payment system on the adoption of new technology: The case of cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 321, 1378–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Kim, S. C., Moon, Y. T., & Kim, K. D.Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy: Experience with piezoelectric second generation lithotripsy in 642 patients. Journal of Urology, 1989, 142, 674–78.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Manil, J., Willett, R., & Sawyer, W.Medical high-technology assessment and implementation in a community hospital: Nuclear magnetic resonance. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 1991, 25, 289–96.Google Scholar
22.Marberger, M., Turk, C., & Steinkogler, I.Painless piezoelectric lithotripsy. Journal of Urology, 1988, 139, 695–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Maynard, A.Is high technology medicine cost effective? Physics, Medicine, and Biology, 1989, 34, 407–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.McGivney, W. T., & Hendee, W. R.Regulation, coverage, and reimbursement of medical technologies. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics, 1990, 18, 697–700.Google ScholarPubMed
25.McGuire, P.Kaiser Permanente's new technologies committee: An approach to assessing technology. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 240–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.McKinlay, J. B. From “promising report” to “standard procedure”: Seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society, 1981, 59, 374–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Menon, D., & Marshall, D.Technology assessment in teaching hospitals. Dimensions in Health Service, 1990, 67, 26–28.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Merrill, J. M.Access to high-tech health care: Ethics. Cancer, 1991, 67, 1750–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Murphy, J. R.The assessment process: A microscopic view. Medical Progress through Technology, 1991, 17, 77–83.Google ScholarPubMed
30.National Institute of Health Consensus Conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 269, 1018–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: U.S.G.P.O., 1978.Google Scholar
32.Perry, S., Pillar, B., & Radany, M. H.The appropriate use of high-cost high-risk technologies: The case of total parenteral nutrition. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 214–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Petitti, D. B.Competing technologies: Implications for the costs and complexities of medical care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 315, 1480–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Phelps, C. E., & Mushlin, A. I.Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Medical Decision Making, 1988, 8, 279–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Sackmann, M., Delius, M., Sauerbruch, , et al. Shock-wave lithotripsy of gallbladder stones: The first 175 patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 393–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Sackmann, M., Sauerbruch, T., & Paumgartner, G.Letter to the editor. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 319, 372.Google Scholar
37.Sauerbruch, T., Delius, M., Paumgartner, G., et al. Fragmentation of gallstones by extra-corporeal shock waves. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Steinberg, E. P., Anderson, G. F., & Steinwachs, D.M.Changes in CT utilization between1981 and 1984: Implications for Medicare payment for MRI imaging under the prospective payment system. Radiology, 1987, 165, 279–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Steinberg, E. P., & Graziano, S.Integrating technology assessment and medical practice evaluations into hospital operations. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 218–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Strong directions for the future: University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital long range plan, 1990–1995. Unpublished report. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Medical Center, 1990.Google Scholar
41.Veluchamy, S., & Saver, C. L.Clinical technology assessment, cost-effective adoption, and quality management by hospitals in the 1990s. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 223–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Way, L. W., ed. Current surgical diagnosis and treatment. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1991.Google Scholar
43.Weingart, S. N.Acquiring advanced technology: Decision-making strategies at twelve medical centers. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 530–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Wheeler, K. E., Porter-O’Grady, T., & Barrell, C. T.Technology: A strategic factor in hospital planning. Health Care Mangement Review, 1985, 10, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Whitted, G. S.Integrating technology and strategic planning in hospitals: A seven-stage process. Hospital & Health Service Administration, 1982, 27, 22–40.Google ScholarPubMed
46.Wittenberg, J., Fineberg, H. V., Black, E. B., et al. Clinical efficacy of computed body tomography. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1978, 131, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Wolfe, B. M., Gardiner, B., & Frey, C. F.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A remarkable development. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 1573–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed