The diffusion of MRI: patterns of siting and ownership in an era of changing incentives.

The rate and pattern of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) siting and ownership are examined in the context of the current turbulent health-care environment. By the end of 1984, 151 MRI units were located at 134 different sites. There was one MRI unit for every 1.55 million Americans. Most of the largest metropolitan areas had at least one unit. Overall, however, the diffusion rate of MRI has lagged behind that of computed tomography (CT). Trends in magnet preference, siting, and ownership are evolving. While the majority of all units are located within hospitals, the diffusion of nonhospital-based MRI units is accelerating. The deployment of hospital-based units is progressing at a slower rate, largely limited to academic institutions and urban centers. Purchase of superconducting and permanent magnets is accelerating, while that of resistive units is decreasing. Likewise, there is a trend toward adoption of intermediate (0.5 T-0.6 T) and large (1.0 T or 1.5 T) magnets. Ownership arrangements are highly varied and characterized by increased efforts at risk-sharing, trends that reflect a more competitive, profit-oriented medical-care environment. An analysis of recent health-policy initiatives and evolving market factors helps to explain some of these observations. Increased cost-consciousness, prospective reimbursement systems, loopholes in current regulations, and increased competition among health-care providers are influencing the diffusion of MRI and may herald the fate of other expensive medical technologies in the near future.

[1]  Diffusion of Innovative Health Care Services in the United States: A Study of Hospitals , 1970, Medical care.

[2]  S R Baker,et al.  The diffusion of high technology medical innovation: the computed tomography scanner example. , 1979, Social science & medicine.

[3]  E. Ginzberg The monetarization of medical care. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  H. Baltaxe,et al.  Nuclear magnetic resonance. , 1983, Annals of internal medicine.

[5]  D. Salkever,et al.  The impact of certificate-of need controls on hospital investment. , 1976, The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly. Health and society.

[6]  H. Smits,et al.  DRGs and the future of surgical practice. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Cost containment and computerized medical imaging. Meeting one another's needs? , 1987, International journal of technology assessment in health care.

[8]  J. Aroesty,et al.  Adoption and diffusion of a new imaging technology: a magnetic resonance imaging prospective. , 1984, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  J. Aroesty,et al.  The diffusion of magnetic resonance imaging scanners in a changing U.S. health care environment. , 1987, International journal of technology assessment in health care.

[10]  J. Wagner,et al.  Prospective reimbursement and the diffusion of new technologies in hospitals. , 1984, Journal of health economics.

[11]  W. Stephens,et al.  Economic considerations in MRI. , 1984, Applied radiology.

[12]  W G Bradley,et al.  Comparison of CT and MR in 400 patients with suspected disease of the brain and cervical spinal cord. , 1984, Radiology.

[13]  S. Freedman Megacorporate health care. A choice for the future. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  R. Evens,et al.  Economic and utilization analysis of magnetic resonance imaging units in the United States in 1985. , 1985, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  G. Forbes,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in a routine clinical setting. , 1985, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[16]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology , 1974, Science.

[17]  S. Schroeder Magnetic resonance imaging: present costs and potential gains. , 1985, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  G. Anderson,et al.  To buy or not to buy. Technology acquisition under prospective payment. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.