Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:20:36.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diffusion of Magnetic Resonance Imagers in the United States and Worldwide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Earl P. Steinberg ,
Jane E. Sisk  and
Katherine E. Locke
Earl P. Steinberg
Affiliation:
Division of Internal MedicineJohns Hopkins Hospital
Jane E. Sisk
Affiliation:
Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment United States Congress
Katherine E. Locke
Affiliation:
Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment United States Congress
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is an exciting new diagnostic modality that has created tremendous interest in the medical profession. Although not unparalleled, the excitement engendered by MR imaging conjures up memories of the “CAT fever” induced by introduction of X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanners in 1973 (19).

Type
An International View of Magnetic Resonance—Imaging and Spectroscopy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 499 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.Anderson, G., & Ginsburg, P. B.Prospective capital payments to hospitals. Health Affairs, 1983 2, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Anderson, G., & Ginsburg, P. B.Medicare payment and hospital capital: Future policy options. Health Affairs, in press.Google Scholar
3.Anderson, G. F., & Steinberg, E. P.To buy or not to buy: Technology acquisition under prospective payment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 182–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Baldwin, G., Center for International Research, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. Personal communication, November 1, 1984.Google Scholar
5.Banta, H. D., & Kemp, K. B.The management of health care in nine countries, New York: Springer, 1982.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Banta, H. D., & Russell, L. B. Summary and analysis. In Banta, H. D. & Kemp, K. B., Eds. The management of health care in nine countries, New York: Springer, 1982, 193–237.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Brooks, R. A., DiChiro, G., & Keller, M. R.Explanation of cerebral white-gray contrast in computed tomography. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 1980, 4, 489–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Carlsson, L., Economist, Swedish Rationalization and Planning Institute. Personal communication, October 25, 1984.Google Scholar
9.Emerging Medical Tech—Europe. Biomedical Business International, 1984, 7, 192–93.Google Scholar
10.Evens, R. G.Economic costs of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 1984, 8, 200–203.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Fuchs, V. R. The physician: The captain of the team. In Fuchs, V. R., Ed. Who Shall Live? Health, economics, and social choice, New York: Basic Books, 1974, 60.Google Scholar
12.Gibson, R. M., Waldo, D. R., & Levit, K. R.National health expenditures. Health Care Financing Review, 1982, 5, 1–31.Google Scholar
13.Gold, J., Office of Health Planning, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Personal communication as cited in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1984.Google Scholar
14.Lauterbur, P. C.Image formation by induced local interactions: Examples employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature, 1973, 242, 190–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lillybeck, L., Manager, MR market development, General Electric Company. Personal communication, August 15, 1984.Google Scholar
16. Mobile Technology Inc. Unpublished data. Los Angeles, Calif., June 16, 1984.Google Scholar
17.Modic, M. T., Pavlicek, W., Weinstein, M. A., Boumphrey, F., Ngo, F., Hardy, R., & Duchesneau, P. M.Magnetic resonance imaging of invertebral disc disease: Clinical and pulse sequence considerations. Radiology, 1984, 152, 103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Pardini, A. P., Cohodes, D. R., & Cohen, A. B.Certificate of need and high capital cost technology: The case of computerized axial tomographic scanners, contract no. 231–77–1004, submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HRA Bureau of Health Planning. Cambridge: Urban Systems Research and Engineering, 1980.Google Scholar
19.Shapiro, S. H., & Wyman, S. M.Cat fever. New England Journal of Medicine, 1976, 294, 954–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Sisk, J. E.Effects of increased competition in health care on the use and innovation of medical technology. Health Care Management Review, 1984, 9, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Steinberg, E. P., & Cohen, A. B. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Health Technology Case Study 27: Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging technology: A clinical, industrial and policy analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
22.Stiles, S. Alpha Center for Health Planning, Bethesda, Md. Personal communication as cited in Steinberg and Cohen, 1984.Google Scholar
23.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Federal policies and the medical devices industry. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
24.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States, 1983. Hyattsville, Md.: 1983.Google Scholar
25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Health Planning. Summary report of health planning agency experiences related to nuclear magnetic resonance devices. Washington, D.C. National Health Planning Information Center, September 24, 1983.Google Scholar
26. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Health Planning. Summary of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) regulations/guidelines/standards and criteria/ program positions by states within regions. Program Information Letter, Washington, D.C, August 24, 1984.Google Scholar
27.Warner, K. E., & Luce, B. R.Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Michigan Health Administration Press, 1982.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Willems, J. S. The relationship between the diffusion of medical technology and the organization and economics of health care delivery. In Wagner, J. L., Ed. Medical Technology, Hyattsville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Services, Research, 1979, 92–105.Google Scholar
29.Willems, J. S., Banta, H. D., Lukas, T. A., & Taylor, C. A. The computer tomography (CT) scanner. In Altman, S. H. & Blendon, R., Eds. Medical technology: The culprit behind health care costs? Hyattsville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Services Research, 1979, 116–43.Google Scholar
30.Young, I. R., Randell, C. P., Kaplan, P. W., James, A., Bydder, G. M., & Steiner, R. E.Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging in white matter disease of the brain using spin-echo sequences. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 1983, 7, 290–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed