Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T22:38:00.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diffusion and Use of Diagnostic Imaging Equipment in France

The Limits of Reguiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

F. Fagnani ,
J. P. Moatti  and
C. Weill
F. Fagnani
Affiliation:
INSERM, France
J. P. Moatti
Affiliation:
INSERM, France
C. Weill
Affiliation:
INSERM, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper presents a French national survey on diagnostic imaging equipment and activity showing that conventional x-ray radiology still dominates and that the rate of diffusion of technological innovations has been very different, being slower than in other industrialized countries for such technologies as CT scanners, nuclear medicine, and magnetic resonance imaging, but on the other hand, very quick for ultrasound and digital angiography.

The variety of regulations for this equipment, although it plays an important role, is not sufficient to explain these differences in the rate of diffusion. The paper shows that other explanatory variables must be taken into account, at least in the French context: the situation of the domestic biomedicai industry, the relations between private and public sectors of health care delivery, and even the “technical” culture and tradition of French radiologists.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 531 - 543
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.Evans, R. G., & Jost, R. B., Computed tomography utilization and charges in 1981. Radiology, 1982, 145, 427–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Fagnani, F. et al. Enquête nationale sur le radiodiagnostic. Journal de Radiologie, 1985, t.66, n°2, pp. 167–174 (1ère partie); n°3, pp. 245–251 (2ème partie); n°4, pp. 329–336 (3ème partie).Google Scholar
3.Fagnani, F., Lefaure, C., Benedittini, M., & Weill, C.La diffusion de l'angiographie numérique en France. Rapport INSERM U.240 n°31, 11 1985.Google Scholar
4.Fuhrer, R. Policy for medical technology in France. In The management of health care technology in nine countries. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982, 100–126.Google Scholar
5.Johnson, L., & Abernaty, D. L.Diagnostic imaging procedure volume in the United States. Radiology 1982, 146, 851–853.Google Scholar
6.Niki, R.An analysis of the rapid dissemination of CT scanners in Japan. Presented at the Health Economics International Conference, Lille, 14–1609 1983.Google Scholar
7.Romeo, A. A., Wagner, J., & Lee, R. H.Prospective reimbursement and the diffusion of new technologies in hospitals. Journal of Health Economics, 1984, 3, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Thierry, J. P.La nouvelle imagerie en France: Enjeux politiques et économiques. Prospectives et Santé, 1985, 33, 63–75.Google Scholar
9.Thierry, J. P., & Moatti, J. P.Le scanographe “milieu de gamme”. Eléments de prospective économique, industrielle et de programmation des equipements. Rapport INSERM U.240 n°13, Mars 1983.Google Scholar
10. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiations (UN-SCEAR). Ionizing radiation's sources and biological effects. UNSCEAR Report, 1982.Google Scholar