National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×

References

ACP (American College of Physicians). Common Diagnostic Tests: Use and Interpretation. Sox, H.C., ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: The College, 1990.

ACP. Common Screening Tests. Eddy, D.M., ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: The College, 1991.

Altman, S.H., and Blendon, R., eds. Medical Technology: The Culprit Behind Health Care Costs? Proceedings of the 1977 Sun Valley Forum on National Health . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979. Publ. No. (PHS) 79-3216.

AMA (American Medical Association). DATTA: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology Assessment. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1988.


Banta, D.H., and Thacker, S.B. The Case for Reassessment of Health Care Technology. Journal of the American Medical Association 264:235-239, 1990.

Banta, D.H., Behney, C.J., and Williams, J.S. Toward Rational Technology in Medicine. New York: Springer, 1981.

Blumenthal, D. Federal Policy Toward Health Care Technology: The Case of the National Center. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 61:584-613, 1983.

Brook, R.H., and Lohr, K.N. Will We Need to Ration Effective Health Care? Issues in Science and Technology 3:68-77, 1986.

Brown, L.D. The National Politics of Oregon's Rationing Plan. Health Affairs 10:29-51, Summer 1991.

Brown, R.E., Sheingold, S.H., and Luce, B.R. Options of Using Practice Guidelines in Reducing the Volume of Medically Unnecessary Services . BHARC-013/89/ 027. Washington, D.C.: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1989.


Callahan, D. Commentary: Ethics and Priority Setting in Oregon. Health Affairs 10:78-87, Summer 1991.

Chassin, M.R., Brook, R.H., Park, R.E., et al. Variations in the Use of Medical and Surgical Services by the Medicare Population. New England Journal of Medicine 314:285-290, 1986.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×

Chassin, M.R., Kosecoff, J., Park, R.E., et al. Does Inappropriate Use Explain Geographic Variations in the Use of Health Care Services? A Study of Three Procedures. Journal of the American Medical Association 258:2533-2537, 1987.

Coile, R.C. Technology and Ethics: Three Scenarios for the 1990s. Quality Review Bulletin 16:202-208, 1990.

DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). AHCPR. Purpose and Programs. Rockville, Md.: DHHS, September 1990. Publ. No. OM90-0096.


Eddy, D.M. Variations in Physician Practice: The Role of Uncertainty. Health Affairs 3:74-89, 1984.

Eddy, D.M. Selecting Technologies for Assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5:485-501, 1989.

Eddy, D.M. Designing a Practice Policy. Standards, Guidelines, and Options. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:3077-3084, 1990a.

Eddy, D.M. Guidelines for Policy Statements: The Explicit Approach. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:877-880, 1990b.

Eddy, D.M. Practice Policies—What Are They? Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1265-1275, 1990c.

Eddy, D.M., and Billings, J. The Quality of the Medical Evidence. Health Affairs 7:20-32, Spring 1988.

Ellwood, P.M. Outcomes Management: A Technology of Patient Experience. New England Journal of Medicine 318:1549-1556, 1988.

Etzioni, A. (Commentary) Health Care Rationing: A Critical Evaluation. Health Affairs 10:88-95, Summer 1991.


Fowler, P.J., Jr., Wennberg, J.E., Timothy, R.P., et al. Symptom Status and Quality of Life Following Prostatectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association 259:3018-3022, 1988.

Freymann, J. The American Health Care System: Its Genesis and Trajectory. New York: Medcom Press, 1974; quoted in Banta et al. (1981).

Fuchs, V.R., and Garber, A.M. The New Technology Assessment. New England Journal of Medicine 323:673-677, 1990.


Gelijns, A. Comparing the Development of Drugs, Devices, and Clinical Procedures. Pp. 147-201 in Modern Methods of Clinical Investigations, Vol. 1 in the series Medical Innovation at the Crossroads. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.

Gelijns, A., and Thief, S. Medical Technology Development: An Introduction to the Innovation-Evaluation Nexus. Pp. 1-15 in Modern Methods of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 1. in the series Medical Innovation at the Crossroads. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.

Ginsberg, E. High Tech Medicine and Rising Health Care Costs. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1820-1822, 1990.


Holohan, J., Berenson, R.A., and Kachavos, P.G. Area Variations in Selected Medicare Procedures. Health Affairs 9:166-175, Winter 1990.


IOM (Institute of Medicine). Assessing Medical Technologies. Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use, Division of Health Sciences Policy, and Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985.

IOM. Council on Health Care Technology, 1986-1987. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×

IOM. Effectiveness Initiative: Setting Priorities for Clinical Conditions. Lohr, K.N., and Rettig, R.A., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989a.

IOM. The NLM and Health Care Technology Assessment. Report of a Study by the Information Panel of the Council for Health Care Technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989b.

IOM. Acute Myocardial Infarction: Setting Priorities for Effectiveness Research. Mattingly, P.H., and Lohn:, K.N., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990a.

IOM. Breast Cancer: Setting Priorities for Effectiveness Research. Lohr, K.N., ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990b.

IOM. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Field, M.J., and Lohr, K.N., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990c.

IOM. Effectiveness and Outcomes in Health Care. Proceedings of an Invitational Conference by the Institute of Medicine. Heithoff, K.A., and Lohr, K.N., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990d.

IOM. Hip Fracture: Setting Priorities for Effectiveness Research. Lohr, K.N., and Heithoff, K.A., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990e.

IOM. National Priorities for the Assessment of Clinical Conditions and Medical Technologies: Report of a Pilot Study. Lara, M.E., and Goodman, C., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990f.

IOM. The Computer-Based Patient Record. An Essential Technology for Health Care. Dick, R., and Steen, E.B., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991a.

IOM. Improving Information Services for Health Services Researchers. A Report to the National Library of Medicine. Harris-Wehling, J., and Morris, L.C., eds. Washington, D.C.: The Institute, 1991b.

IOM. Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use. Field, M.J., and Lohr, K.N., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, forthcoming.

Kinney, E.D. Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States on National Coverage Policy Under the Medicare Program: Problems and Proposals for Change. The Center for Law and Health, Indiana University School of Law, November 1987.

Kuppermann, M., Luce, B.R., McGovern, B., et al. An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of the Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator. Circulation 81:91-100, 1990.


Leaf, A. Cost Effectiveness as a Criterion for Medicare Coverage. New England Journal of Medicine 321:898-900, 1989.

Lewin and Associates. A Forward Plan for Medicare Coverage and Technology Assessment. Vol. 1: The Forward Plan. Roe, W., Anderson, M., Gong, I., et al., eds. Washington, D.C.: Lewin and Associates, 1987.

Lohr, K.N. Outcome Measurement: Concepts and Questions. Inquiry 25:37-50, 1988.


McNeil, B.J., and Abrams, H.L. Brigham and Women's Hospital Handbook of Diagnostic Imaging. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1986.

McNeil, B.J., Weichselbaum, R., and Pauker, S.G. Fallacy of the Five-year Survival in Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 299:1397-1401, 1978.

McPhee, S.J., Myers, L.P., and Schroeder, S.A. The Cost and Risks of Medical

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×

Care—An Annotated Bibliography for Clinicians and Educators. Western Journal of Medicine 137:145-161, 1982.

McPherson, K., Wennberg, J.E., Hovind, O.B., et al. Small Area Variations in the Use of Common Surgical Procedures: An International Comparison of New England, England, and Norway. New England Journal of Medicine 307:1310-1314, 1982.

Merrick, N.L., Brook, R.H., link, A., et al. Use of Carotid Endarterectomy in Five California Veterans Administration Medical Centers. Journal of the American Medical Association 258:2531-2535, 1986.

Misener, J.H. The Impact of Technology on the Quality of Health Care. Quality Review Bulletin 16:209-213, June 1990.

Moloney, T.W., and Rogers, D.E. Medical Technology—A Different View of the Continuous Debate over Costs. New England Journal of Medicine 301:1413-1419, 1979.

Moskowitz, A.J., Benjamin, J.K., and Kassirer, J.P. Dealing with Uncertainty, Risks, and Tradeoffs in Clinical Decisions . Annals of Internal Medicine 108:435-449, 1988.

Mushlin, A.I. Uncertain Decisionmaking in Primary Care: Causes and Solutions. Pp. 153-158 in Primary Care Research: Theory and Methods. Rockville, Md.: DHHS, 1991. Publ. No. 91-0011.

National Advisory Council on Health Care Technology Assessment. The Medicare Coverage Process. Submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment. September 1988.


Office of Inspector General. Medicare Carrier Assessment of New Technologies. Washington, D.C.: DHHS, April 1990. Publ. No. OEI-01-88-00010.

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. Publ. No. OTA-H-75.

OTA. The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology. Background Paper No. 1: Methodological Issues and Literature Review. U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.

OTA. Strategies for Medical Technology Assessment. U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.


Park, R.E., Fink, A., Brook, R.H., et al. Physician Ratings of Appropriate Indications for Six Medical and Surgical Procedures . R-3280-CWF/HF/PMT/RWJ. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, 1986.

Paul-Shaheen, P., Clark, J.D., and Williams, D. Small Area Analysis: A Review and Analysis of the North American Literature. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 12:741-809, 1987.

Perry, S., and Pillar, B. A National Policy for Health Care Technology Assessment (editorial). Medical Care Review 47:401-416, 1990.

Phelps, C.E. Death and Taxes—An Opportunity for Substitution. Journal of Health Economics 7:1-24, 1988.

Phelps, C.E. Diffusion of Information in Medical Care. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Forthcoming.

Phelps, C.E., and Mooney, K. Variation in Medical Practice Use: Causes and Consequences. University of Rochester, June 1991.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×

Phelps, C.E., and Parente, S.T. Priority Setting in Medical Technology and Medical Practice Assessment. Medical Care 28:703-723, 1990.

Relman, A.S. Assessment and Accountability: The Third Revolution in Medical Care. New England Journal of Medicine 319:1220-1222, 1988.

Rettig, R.A. Technology Assessment—An Update. Investigative Radiology 26:165-173, 1991.

Roberts, E.B. Technological Innovation and Medical Devices. Pp. 35-47 in New Medical Devices. Ekelman, K.B., ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988.

Roper, W.L., Winkenwerder, W., Hackbarth, G.M., et al. Effectiveness in Health Care: An Initiative to Evaluate and Improve Medical Practice. New England Journal of Medicine 319:1197-1202, 1988.


Schwartz, W.B. The Inevitable Failure of Cost Containment Strategies. Journal of the American Medical Association 257:220-224, 1987.

Sipes-Metzler, P.R. Oregon's Challenge to Achieve Health Care Equity. Paper presented at a meeting sponsored by the California Public Employees' Retirement System's Health Benefits Advisory Council, April 24-25, 1991.

Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1967.

Stewart, A.L., Greenfield, S., Hays, R.D., et al. Functional Status and Well-being of Patients With Chronic Conditions. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Journal of the American Medical Association 262:907-913, 1989.


Wells, K.B., Stewart, A., and Hays, R.D. The Functioning and Well-being of Depressed Patients. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Journal of the American Medical Association 262:914-919, 1989.

Wennberg, J.E. The Paradox of Appropriate Care. Journal of the American Medical Association 258:2568-2569, 1987.

Wennberg, J.E. What is Outcomes Research? Pp. 33-46 in Modern Methods of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 1 in the series Medical Innovation at the Crossroads. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.

Wennberg, J.E., and Gittelsohn, A. Small Area Variations in Health Care Delivery. Science 142:1102-1108, 1973.

Wennberg, J.E., and Gittelsohn, A. Health Care Delivery in Maine. I: Patterns of Use of Common Surgical Procedures. Journal of the Maine Medical Association 66:123-149, 1975.

Wennberg, J.E., and Gittelsohn, A. Variations in Medical Care Among Small Areas. Scientific American 246:120-134, 1982.

Winslow, C.M., Solomon, D.H., Chassin, M.R., et al. The Appropriateness of Carotid Endarterectomy. New England Journal of Medicine 318:721-727, 1988a.

Winslow, C.M., Kosecoff, J.B., Chassin, M.R., et al. The Appropriateness of Performing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Journal of the American Medical Association 260:505-509, 1988b.

Woolf, S.H., Battista, R.N., Anderson, O.M., et al. Assessing the Clinical Effectiveness of Preventive Maneuvers: Analytic Principles and Systematic Methods in Reviewing Evidence and Developing Clinical Practice Recommendations. The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43:891-905, 1990.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2011.
×
Page 135
Next: APPENDIX A: A PILOT TEST OF THE IOM MODEL »
Setting Priorities for Health Technologies Assessment: A Model Process Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The problem of deciding which health care technologies to evaluate is urgent. With new technologies proliferating alongside steadily increasing health care costs, it is critical to discriminate among technologies to direct tests and treatments at those who can benefit the most.

Given the vast number of clinical problems and technologies to be evaluated, the many months of work required to study just one problem, and the relatively few clinicians with highly developed analytic skills, institutions must set priorities for assessment. This book sets forth criteria and a method that can be used by public agencies such as the Office of Health Technology Assessment (in the U.S. Public Health Service) and by any private organization conducting such work to decide which technologies to assess or reassess.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!