Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T15:22:15.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Kathleen N. Gillespie
Affiliation:
St. Louis Veterans Administration Medical CenterSt. Louis University Medical Center
Anne Elixhauser
Affiliation:
St. Louis Veterans Administration Medical CenterSt. Louis University Medical Center
Dean M. Reker
Affiliation:
St. Louis Veterans Administration Medical CenterSt. Louis University Medical Center
James W. Fletcher
Affiliation:
St. Louis Veterans Administration Medical CenterSt. Louis University Medical Center
Fredric D. Wolinsky
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University

Extract

Any new technology that promises significant costs as well as potential benefits generates considerable interest. Such innovations bring into bold relief the fundamental problem of achieving maximal medical benefits while efficiently and equitably allocating scarce resources (II). Two tools that decision makers can use to assess the benefits and costs of implementing new technologies are cost- benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). One technology that seems especially appropriate for the application of CBA and CEA is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging.

Type
An International View of Magnetic Resonance—Imaging and Spectroscopy
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.Bahr, A., & Hodges, F. J.Efficacy of computed tomography of the head in changing patient care and health costs: A retrospective study. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1978, 131, 45–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Baker, C., & Way, L. W.Clinical utility of CAT body scans. American Journal of Surgery, 1978, 136, 3744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Banta, H., & McNeil, B. J.Evaluation of the CT scanner and other diagnostic technologies. Health Care Management Review, 1978, 3, 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bradley, W. G. Jr, Practical economic considerations of clinical nuclear magnetic resonance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 251, 1303–04.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Bradley, W. G., Opel, W., & Kassabian, J. P.Magnetic resonance installation: Siting and economic considerations. Radiology, 1984, 151, 719–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Bryan, R. N., Wilcott, M. R., Schneiders, N. J., Ford, J. J., & Derman, H. S.Nuclear magnetic resonance evaluation of stroke: A preliminary report. Radiology, 1983, 149, 189–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Bydder, G. M., Steiner, R. E., Young, I. R., Hall, A. S., Thomas, D. J., Marshall, J., Pallis, C. A., & Legg, N. J.Clinical NMR imaging of the brain: 140 cases. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1982, 139, 215–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cohen, A. M., Creviston, S., LiPuma, J. P., Bryan, P. J., Lieberman, J., Haaga, J. R., and Alfidi, R. J.Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the mediastinum and hili: Early impressions of its efficacy. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1983, 141, 1163–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Dorfman, D. D., & Alf, E. Jr, Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signaldetection theory and determination of confidence intervals: Rating-method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1969, 6, 487–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Doyle, F. H., Pennock, J. M., Orr, J. S., Gore, J. C., Bydder, G. M., Steiner, R. E., Young, I. R., Clow, H., Bailes, D. R., Burl, M., Gilderdale, D. J., & Walters, P. E.Imaging of the brain by nuclear magnetic resonance. Lancet, 1981, 8236, 53–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Evans, R.Health care technology and the inevitability of resource allocation and rationing decisions: Part 1 and Part 2. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983, 249, 2047–53 and 249, 2208–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Evens, R. G., & Jost, R. G.The clinical efficacy and cost analysis of cranial computed tomography and the radionuclide brain scan. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 1977, 7, 129136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Evens, R. G.Economic costs of NMR imaging. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 1984, 8, 200–3.Google Scholar
14.Fineberg, H. V., Bauman, R., & Sosman, M.Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1977, 238, 224–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Fineberg, H. V., Wittenberg, J., Ferrucci, J. T., Mueller, P. R., Simeone, J. F., & Goldman, J.The clinical value of body computed tomography over time and change. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1983, 141, 1067–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Freedman, G. S., Stephens, W. H., & Fisher, B.Economic considerations in MRI. Applied Radiology, 1984, 13, 5562.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Gamsu, G., Webb, W. R., Sheldon, P., Kaufman, L., Crooks, L. E., Birnberg, F. A., Goodman, P., Hinchcliffe, W. A., & Hedgecock, M.Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the thorax. Radiology, 1983, 147, 473–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Hull, R., Hirsh, J., Sackett, D. L., & Stoddart, G.Cost effectiveness of clinical diagnosis, venography, and non-invasive testing in patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 1561–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Loop, J. W., & Lusted, L. B.Special report: American college of radiology diagnostic efficacy studies. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1978, 131, 173–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Luft, H. S.Benefit-cost analysis and public policy implementation: From normative to positive analysis. Public Policy, 1976, 24, 437–62.Google ScholarPubMed
21.McNeil, B. J., Hanley, J. A., Funkenstein, H. H., & Wallman, J.Paired receiver operating characteristic curves and the effect of history on radiographic interpretation. Radiology, 1983, 149, 75–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Mishan, E. J.Evaluations of life and limb: A theoretical approach. Journal of Political Economy, 1971, 79, 687705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Muller, A., & Reutzel, T. J.Willingness to pay for reduction in fatality risk: an exploratory survey. American Journal of Public Health, 1984, 74, 808–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. (#052–003–00765–7) Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
25.Osborne, D. R., Korobkin, M., Ravin, C. E., Putman, C. E., Wolfe, W. G., Sealy, W. C., Young, W. G., Breiman, R., Heaston, D., Ram, P., & Halber, M.Comparison of plain radiography, conventional tomography, and computed tomography in detecting intrathoracic lymph node metastases from lung carcinoma. Radiology, 1982, 142, 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Pohost, G. M., & Ratner, A. V.Nuclear magnetic resonance: Potential applications in clinical cardiology. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 251, 1304–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Randell, C. P., Collins, A. G., Young, I. R., Haywood, R., Thomas, D. J., McDonnell, M. J., Orr, J. S., Bydder, G. M., & Steiner, R. E.Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of posterior fossa tumors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1983, 141, 489–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Riddiough, M. A., Sisk, J. E., & Bell, J. C.Influenza vaccination cost-effectiveness and public policy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983, 249, 3189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Robbins, A. H., Pugatch, R. D., Gerzof, S. G., Faling, L. J., Johnson, W. C., & Sewell, D. H.Observations on the medical efficacy of computed tomography of the chest and abdomen. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1978, 131, 1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Showstack, J. A., Schroeder, S. A., & Steinberg, H. R.Evaluating the costs and benefits of a diagnostic technology. Medical Care, 1981, 19, 498509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Swartz, R., & DesHarnais, S.Computed tomography: The cost-benefit dilemma. Radiology, 1977, 125, 251–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Swets, J. A.ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques. Investigative Radiology, 1979, 14, 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Viscusi, W. K.Labor market valuations of life and limb: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Public Policy, 1978, 26, 359–86.Google ScholarPubMed
34.Wagner, J. L.The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology: Case study #2: The feasibility of economic evaluation of diagnostic procedures: The case of CT scanning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
35.Wagner, J. L., & Krieger, M. J.The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology: Background paper #5: Four common x-ray procedures: Problems and prospects for economic evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
36.Warner, K. E., & Luce, B. R.Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in health care: principles, practice, and potential. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1982.Google Scholar
37.Watts, C. A., Jackson, M., & Logerfo, J. P.Cost-effectiveness analysis: Some problems of implementation. Medical Care, 1979, 17, 430–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Weinstein, M. C. Conducting cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses: Problems and prospects. Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Services Research, Chicago, 1984.Google Scholar
39.Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Wortzman, G., & Holgate, R. C.Reappraisal of the cost-effectiveness of computed tomography in a government-sponsored health care system. Radiology, 1979, 130, 257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Young, I. R., & Hall, A. S.Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the brain in multiple sclerosis. Lancet, 1981, 8255, 1063–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Zeckhauser, R.Procedures for valuing lives. Public Policy, 1975, 23, 419–64.Google ScholarPubMed