Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1996 21(2):243-266; DOI:10.1215/03616878-21-2-243
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (14)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacobson, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenquist, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Duke University Press

The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine

Peter D. Jacobson
RAND Corporation

C. John Rosenquist
University of California, Davis Medical Center

The escalating cost of medical care in the United States, especially in the past decade, has resulted in efforts to identify the factors contributing to rising costs. One factor often assumed to cause higher medical costs is the physician’s fear of liability for not using the latest available technology. In this article, we report the results of a case study we conducted to better understand the relationship between the introduction and use of one particular technology, low-osmolar contrast agents, and liability concerns. Our study suggests that both clinicians and administrators are primarily guided by the medical benefits of low-osmolar contrast agents, and that liability concerns, although widespread, are of secondary importance. The inability to control this and similar technologies is likely to put a far greater strain on the nation’s health care resources than is the practice of defensive medicine. These findings may be helpful to health policy makers, physicians, administrators, and legislators considering choices for health care reform in general and for medical liability reform in particular.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
B. A. Liang
Error in Medicine: Legal Impediments to U.S. Reform
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1999; 24(1): 27 - 58.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
P. A. Glassman, J. E. Rolph, L. P. Petersen, M. A. Bradley, and R. L. Kravitz
Physicians' Personal Malpractice Experiences Are Not Related to Defensive Clinical Practices
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 1996; 21(2): 219 - 241.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
R. R. Bovbjerg, L. C. Dubay, G. M. Kenney, and S. A. Norton
Defensive Medicine and Tort Reform: New Evidence in an Old Bottle
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 1996; 21(2): 267 - 288.
[Abstract] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1996 by Duke University Press