Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:25:51.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diffusion of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners in a Changing U.S. Health Care Environment

I. Acquirer's Considerations and Actions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Bruce J. Hillman ,
C.R. Neu ,
John D. Winkler ,
Jerome Aroesty ,
Richard A. Rettig  and
Albert P. Williams
Bruce J. Hillman
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
C.R. Neu
Affiliation:
The Rand Corporation
John D. Winkler
Affiliation:
The Rand Corporation
Jerome Aroesty
Affiliation:
The Rand Corporation
Richard A. Rettig
Affiliation:
The Illinois Institute of Technology
Albert P. Williams
Affiliation:
The Rand Corporation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Technological aspects and early clinical experiences are arousing great enthusiasm over magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, influences such as regulation, reimbursement, and increasing competition also are playing important roles in determining the diffusion of this new technology. Of these considerations, competition among providers seems the most important. Competition related to MRI is manifested as direct competition over MRI services, using MRI to improve a provider's strategic position and competition among specialties. In making decisions concerning MRI acquisition and operation, providers are drawing upon their experiences with computed tomography (CT) to help them determine when would be the best time for acquisition, how to decide whether acquisition is appropriate, and how best to acquire, operate, and market the technology.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 545 - 554
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.Anderson, G., & Steinberg, E. P.To buy or not to buy: Technology acquisition under prospective payment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 182–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Baker, S. R.The diffusion of high technology medical innovation: The computed tomography scanner example. Society, Science and Medicine, 1979, 130, 155–162.Google Scholar
3.Banta, H. D.The diffusion of the computed tomography scanner in the United States. International Journal of Health Services Research, 1980, 10, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Brasfield, J. M.Health planning reform: A proposal for the ‚80s. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 1982, 6, 718–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Brust, J. C. M., Dickinson, P. C. T., & Healton, E. B.Failure of CT sharing in a large municipal hospital. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 1388–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Cost of Living Council: Health care, final phase IV regulations. Federal Register 1974, 39, 16.Google Scholar
7.Creditor, M. C., & Garrett, J. B.The information base for diffusion of technology: Computed tomography scanning. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 297, 49–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Evens, R. G., Jost, R. G., & Evens, R. G. JrEconomic and utilization analysis of magnetic resonance imaging units in the United States in 1985. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1985, 145, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Freeland, M. S., & Schendler, C. E.National health expenditure growth in the 1980s: An aging population, new technologies, and increasing competition. Health Care Financing Review, 1983, 4, 1–43.Google Scholar
10.Hess, T. T., & Ogle, P. L.RSNA exhibitors reassure physicians by following up on marketing hype. Diagnostic Imaging, 1986, 01, 32.Google Scholar
11.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S.The diffusion of MRI: Patterns of citing and ownership in an era of changing incentives. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 146, 963–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hillman, B. J.Paying physicians in the future: Implications for radiologists. Diagnostic Imaging, 1986, 04, 56–60.Google Scholar
13.Hillman, B. J., Neu, C. R., Winkler, J. D. et al. , The diffusion of magnetic resonance imaging into clinical practice. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, WD-2621–3-HHS, 1986.Google Scholar
14.Hillman, B. J., Winkler, J. D., Phelps, C. E. et al. , Adoption and diffusion of a new imaging technology: A magnetic resonance imaging prospective. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1984, 143, 913–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Steinberg, E. P.The impact of regulation and payment innovations on acquisition of new imaging technologies. Radiological Clinics of North America, 1985, 23, 381–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Vinocur, B.MR magnet strength debate: In search of an optimum field. Diagnostic Imaging, 1984, 11, 106–113.Google Scholar