This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (99)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Medical, Economic, Legal, and Public Policy Issues

Peter D. Jacobson, JD, MPH; C. John Rosenquist, MD

JAMA. 1988;260(11):1586-1592.

Abstract
This case study of the public policy implications of introducing a new technology in radiology, namely, low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), raises the issues of whether and how to place appropriate limits on new technologies. Although these contrast media represent small episodic costs, they may add up to an aggregate expenditure of nearly $1 billion per year if used for all contrast injections. As a result, this technology raises a number of important medical, economic, legal, and public policy questions. Our cost-effectiveness analysis and an analysis of the medical evidence suggest that LOCM should be limited to high-risk patients. We discuss in this article how the legal system might respond to such limitations, and we consider various public policy options for adopting restrictions on use. We conclude that the medical profession should take the lead in developing protocols for appropriate assessment, reimbursement, and use of LOCM.

(JAMA 1988;260:1586-1592)

Author Affiliations
From The RAND Corp, Santa Monica, Calif.

Footnotes
The conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The RAND Corp.

Reprint requests to The RAND Corp, 1700 Main St, Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138 (Mr Jacobson).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Courts: Recent Trends and Future Prospects
Jacobson and Kanna
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2001;26:291-326.
ABSTRACT  

Quality of Life: Erosions and Opportunities Under Managed Care
Morreim
J Law Med Ethics 2000;28:144-158.
 

Genitourinary Imaging: The Past 40 Years
Goldman and Sandler
Radiology 2000;215:313-324.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography) developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions
Scanlon et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:1756-1824.
FULL TEXT  

The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine
Jacobson and Rosenquist
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1996;21:243-266.
ABSTRACT  

Setting Limits in Clinical Medicine
Murphy et al.
Arch Intern Med 1994;154:505-512.
ABSTRACT  

Elevated Risk of Anaphylactoid Reaction From Radiographic Contrast Media Is Associated With Both {beta}-Blocker Exposure and Cardiovascular Disorders
Lang et al.
Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2033-2040.
ABSTRACT  

The Newer Radiographic Contrast Media
Eggli
CLIN PEDIATR 1992;31:554-558.
 

Costs of Low-Osmolar Contrast Media
Spring and Quesenberry
JAMA 1991;266:1081-1082.
ABSTRACT  

Increased Risk for Anaphylactoid Reaction from Contrast Media in Patients on {beta}-Adrenergic Blockers or with Asthma
Lang et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1991;115:270-276.
ABSTRACT  

Anticoagulation for Noncardiac Procedures in Patients With Prosthetic Heart Valves: Does Low Risk Mean High Cost?
Eckman et al.
JAMA 1990;263:1513-1521.
ABSTRACT  

Water-Soluble Radiographic Contrast Media: Ionic vs. Nonionic
Redman and Miller
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1990;3:45-55.
 

Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents
Anthony
JAMA 1989;261:1441-1441.
ABSTRACT  

Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents
Manber and Muhlbauer
JAMA 1989;261:1441-1441.
ABSTRACT  

Cost vs Safety The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Media
Fischer
JAMA 1988;260:1614-1614.
ABSTRACT