Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T10:21:59.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low-Cost Technologies and Public Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Kenneth I. Shine
Kenneth I. Shine
Affiliation:
Institute of MedicineNational Academy of Sciences
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evaluation of low-cost technologies is complicated by the difficulty of understanding what is meant by “low” cost. Low unit costs may lead to the widespread use of a technology that results in high aggregate costs. It is often more useful to consider the value than the cost of a technology, recognizing that this value may change, depending upon the group to whom it is applied as well as the factors that are measured. Public policy should attempt not only to control costs but also to obtain the greatest value for expenditures in health care by supporting the development of methodologies to define value, reimbursement strategies that emphasize cost-effectiveness, and clinical guidelines that can reduce variation in practice.

Type
Special Section: The Use And Abuse Of Low-Cost Technologies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , Fall 1997 , pp. 562 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.American Heart Association. Heart and stroke facts: 1996 statistical supplement. Dallas: American Heart Association, 1995.Google Scholar
2.Barzini, L.The Europeans. New York: Penguin Books, 1984.Google Scholar
3.Dick, R. S., & Steen, E. B., (eds.). The computer-based patient record: An essential technology for health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.Google Scholar
4.Dorsey, J. H., Holtz, P. M., Griffiths, R. I., et al. Costs and charges associated with three alternative techniques of hysterectomy. New England Journal of Medicine, 1996, 335, 476–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hannan, E. L., Kumar, D., Racz, M., et al. New York state's cardiac surgery reporting system: Four years later. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1994, 58,1852–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Harrison, P. F., & Rosenfield, A., (eds.). Contraceptive research and development: Looking to the future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.Google Scholar
7.LaPuma, J., & Lawlor, E. F.Quality adjusted life-years. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 2917–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Legoretta, A. P., Silber, J. H., Costantino, G. N., et al. Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American Medica Association, 1993, 270, 1429–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Mitchell, V. S., Philipose, N. M., & Sanford, J. P., (eds.). The children's vaccine initiative Achieving the vision. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.Google Scholar
10.Murray, C., & Lopez, A. The global burden of disease, 1990. In World development indicators: Investing in health—World development report, 1993. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, 213–25.Google Scholar
11.Newhouse, J. P.An iconoclastic view of health cost containment. Health Affairs, 1993, 12(suppl.), 152–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Weber, A. M., & Lee, J. C.Use of alternative techniques of hysterectomy in Ohio, 1988–1994. New England Journal of Medicine, 1996, 335, 483–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed