In many Western countries, long waiting times for elective surgery are a concern. Major joint replacement is an example of a type of surgery with a high volume of demand and relatively long waiting periods for patients. As populations get older, the prevalence of slowly progressive diseases, such as osteoarthritis (OA) in hip and knee joints, is increasing. Over three-quarters of a million total hip and knee replacement surgeries are done in the United States annually (1). Furthermore, according to March et al. (1997), the costs of OA have been estimated to account for up to 1–2.5 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP) in several developed countries (2). In Finland, a total of 11,104 total joint replacements (TJRs) were performed in 2004 (hip 6,600 and knee 5,905), with the median waiting time of 181 days for the surgery (hip 153 and knee 209 days). Until 2007, the number of TJRs was 17,334 (hip 7,698 and knee 9,636), with a median waiting time of 120 and 142 days, respectively (3;4). The mean waiting time for elective surgical procedures is approximately 3 months in several countries and the maximum waiting times can stretch into years.

As critics such as Thomas McKeown (12) have pointed out, Western medicine is concerned firstly with the promotion of medical care and only secondarily with the promotion of health care. Medical care and health care are not necessarily the same thing. There are ways of caring for people's health which do not involve medical examinations, procedures, and drugs—they involve such activities as health education, preventive health care, self-help, and community support. However, since these alternative routes to health mostly lie outside the theory and practice of professional medical care provision, their impact on health and illness is largely unexamined.

The assessment of medical technologies has to answer several questions ranging from safety and effectiveness to complex economical, social, and health policy issues. The type of data needed to carry out such evaluation depends on the specific questions to be answered, as well as on the stage of development of a technology.

Basically two types of data may be distinguished: (a) general demographic, administrative, or financial data which has been collected not specifically for technology assessment; (b) the data collected with respect either to a specific technology or to a disease or medical problem.

On the basis of a pilot inquiry in Europe and bibliographic research, the following categories of type (b) data bases have been identified: registries, clinical data bases, banks of factual and bibliographic knowledge, and expert systems. Examples of each category are discussed briefly. The following aims for further research and practical goals are proposed: criteria for the minimal data set required, improvement to the registries and clinical data banks, and development of an international clearinghouse to enhance information diffusion on both existing data bases and available reports on medical technology assessments.

The United States, unlike most European countries, has had substantial legal, regulatory, and legislative activity concerning treatment decisions for newborns. This activity began as a result of the highly publicized “Baby Doe” case, in which parents of a child born in 1982 with Down syndrome and esophageal atresia refused consent for surgery, and the Indiana state courts refused to intervene (1). Initially, the Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a series of “Baby Doe” regulations intended to prohibit nontreatment. The regulations were at all times invoking the theory that it is discriminatory to fail to provide treatment to a handicapped infant if such treatment would be provided to a child without such handicap (2). This theory worked well for the department's paradigm case, where the handicap was one such as Down syndrome, and there was an associated physical defect that could be corrected and that would be treated were the infant of normal mental capacity. But a nondiscrimination theory here is extremely rigid: it appeared that even devastating levels of handicap— indeed, even the most extreme “handicap” of unconsciousness — would be irrelevant to treatment decisions.

There are situations where, for many reasons, an innovation considered revolutionary in several respects is widely accepted by those whose ways of doing things are transformed by it. The innovation represents a “winning combination” in that it combines such attractive elements that each party, for its own reasons, will desire its adoption and work toward that common goal. In France, and particularly in the Assistance Publique de Paris and in the Hospices Civils de Lyon, such has been the case with the German-made Dornier extracorporeal lithotriptor, an innovation that makes it possible to destroy kidney stones without surgery.

Drug regulation in the United States has been the subject of extensive public literature and has been studied more thoroughly than any other aspect of American governmental regulation. Yet it remains mired in criticism and debate that, over the years, have threatened not only the existing regulatory system but also the stability of the American drug industry itself. This article summarizes the history of drug regulation in the United States, discusses the basic structure of the American regulatory system as it exists today, and relates some of the more important controversies that continue to surround this subject.

Systemic blood pressure (BP) is the product of cardiac output and total peripheral resistance. Cardiac output is controlled by the heart rate, myocardial contractility, preload, and afterload. Vascular resistance (vascular hindrance × viscosity) is under local autoregulation and general neurohumoral control through sympathetic adrenergic innervation and circulating catecholamines. Sympathetic innovation predominates in organs receivingflowin excess of their metabolic demands (skin, splanchnic organs, kidney), while innervation is poor and autoregulation predominates in the brain and heart. The distribution of blood flow depends on the relative resistances of the organ circulations. During stress (hypoxia, low cardiac output), a raise in adrenergic tone and in circulating catecholamines leads to preferential vasoconstriction in highly innervated organs, so that blood flow is directed to the brain and heart. Catecholamines also control the levels of the vasoconstrictors renin, angiotensin II, and vasopressin. These general principles also apply to the neonate.

Economic techniques have been used for several years to evaluate health care expenditures, and there is reasonable agreement amongst economists as to the appropriate methodology. Comprehensive reviews of techniques and applications can be found in Drummond (3,4), Culyer and Horisberger (2) and a report from the Office of Technology Assessment (7). More recently Williams (13) has addressed the problems of evaluating a developing technology and Wagner (10) the specific problems of diagnostic technologies.

In a cross-sectional, retrospective study of 604 cases, variations among three Norwegian hospitals in use of perioperative parenteral nutrition (TPN) after gastrointestinal surgery was determined. Postoperative TPN rates were 25%, 34% (p =.05) and 56% (p <.0001). respectively. However, a substantial part of the variation was explained by differences in patient characteristics.

In less than four years, the techniques of gene transfer have been taken from the laboratory and translated into numerous clinical trials. Although gene therapy was initially designed for the molecular repair of monogenic deficiency diseases, most of the current studies of gene therapy are targeting cancer.

Today, computers are used in several important and fast-growing medical imaging modalities, such as digital subtraction angiography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine, and diagnostic ultrasound. The ultimate test for the computer in medical imaging will be its ability to replace traditional film-based radiography as the mechanism for displaying, communicating, and storing imaging information. This transition will require radiologists and other imagers to accept information in digital form. The speed of that acceptance depends on the economic incentives of the health care system. These are changing as a result of cost containment, which is moving away from fee-for-service toward bundled payment. The increase in capitated health plans will encourage the development of digital radiography systems that realistically trade-off the perceived quality needs of radiologists with the costs of producing and operating such systems.

Physicians often obtain the same test over and over again. This article first considers screening tests, such as mammographic screening for breast cancer, and describes several proposals for finding the interval that best balances cost, harms, and benefits. The same principles apply to monitoring a patient for recurrence of a disease, such as bladder cancer. The article closes with a theoretical consideration of the circumstances for repeating a test once to check a surprising value.

Analysis of the 1987–1991 national outpatient claims data shows that the percentage of patients undergoing sophisticated diagnostic tests tended to increase and was greater if the hospital was larger, in the public sector, or affiliated with an university. For imaging, the percentage that had CAT scans performed increased, while the percentage undergoing x-rays using contrast medium and other tomography decreased. However, for drugs, newer and more expensive ones tended to be preferred irrespective of the providers' characteristics. Although costs arising from the shift to more expensive and sophisticated technologies have been largely contained by reducing their prices in the fee schedule, this cost-containment strategy faces structural problems. We advocate the establishment of an infrastructure that offers incentives for providers to conduct technology assessment and to use the results.

Few would argue that the randomized clinical trial is the most definitive instrument available for measuring the safety and efficacy of a new medical technology, be it drug, device, or procedure. Randomization removes the potential for bias in the allocation of subjects to the intervention group or to the control group. In addition, randomization tends to produce comparable groups which can be further strengthened by stratification and by stratified analyses. The randomized controlled trial guarantees validity of statistical tests, as long as the sample size is large enough to avoid type-II error.