Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: Current implications for health care consumers

Radiology

Volumn 228, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 346-351

  Illes, Judy ^a   Fan, Ellen ^a   Koenig, Barbara A ^a   Raffin, Thomas A ^a   Kann, Dylan ^a   Atlas, Scott W ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Computed tomography (CT); Economics, medical

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SELF CARE;

HUMANS; INTERNET; MARKETING OF HEALTH SERVICES; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; SELF CARE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0041341873     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2282021083     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Cihak RJ, Glueck MA. Are whole-body CT scans safe and effective for exploratory screening? yes: in the real world, the x-rays used in these examinations are extremely safe. Available at: www.insightmag.com/archive/200107245.shtml. Accessed July 7, 2001.
2. Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early lung cancer action project: initial findings on repeat screenings. Cancer 2001; 92:153-159.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee. Rockville, Md, 2002.
4. Stanley RJ. Are whole-body CT scans safe and effective for exploratory screening? no: entrepreneurs are profiting by turning previously healthy people into patients. Available at: www.insightmag.com/archive/200107245.shtml. Accessed August 13, 2001.
5. Taylor AJ, O'Mally PG. Self-referral of patients for electron beam computed tomography to screen for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:2018-2021.
6. Lee TH, Brennan TA. Direct-to-consumer marketing of high technology screening tests. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:529-531.
7. Cho MK. Conflicts of interest in MRI: issues in clinical practice and research. In: Illes J, Atlas SW, eds. Emerging ethical issues in MRI: topics in MRI. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002; 13:73-78.
8. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Conflicts of interest: physician ownership of medical facilities. JAMA 1992; 267:2366-2369.
9. O'Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicher VF, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association expert con sensus document on electron beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:326-340.
10. Stanley R. Inherent danger of radiology screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 77:989-992.
11. Goldblatt D, Beresford HR, Bernat JL, et al. Members of The Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee of the American Academy of Neurology, Practice Advisory: participation of a neurologist in direct-to-consumer advertising. Neurology 2001; 56:995-996.
12. Mitchell JM, Scott E. New evidence of the prevalence and scope of physician joint ventures. JAMA 1992; 268:80-84.
13. Becker S, Balfe EC, Rosenberg AF. Imaging ventures: a legal primer. Health Care Law Mon 2001; Feb:3-14.
14. D'Angelo, P. Regulating CT Screening in Pennsylvania. Physician's News Digest. Available at: http://physiciansnews.com/cover/802.html. Accessed May 22, 2003.
15. Feedback Research Services. Cardiac and preventive scanning markets: service and system revenues. Jacksonville, Ore: Feed-back Research Services, 2001.
16. Sullivan, D. Search engine ratings and review. Available at: www.searchetiginewatch.com/reports/index.html. Accessed July 7, 2001.
17. Notess, GR. Database relative. Available at: www.searchengineshowdown.com/stats/size.shtml. Accessed July 7, 2001.
18. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 1994.
19. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
20. Risk A, Petersen C. Health information on the Internet: quality issues and international initiatives. JAMA 2002; 287:2713-2715.
21. Hogle L. Chemoprevention for healthy women: harbinger of things to come? Health 2001; 5:311-333.
22. Rotzoll K, Haefner J. Advertising in contemporary society. Urbana, III: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
23. Moynihan R. The marketing of fear. Australian Financial Review. 2000; 24.
24. Maguire P. How direct-to-consumer advertising is putting the squeeze on physicians. In: ACP-ASIM Observer (newsletter). Philadelphia, Pa: American College of Physicians. Available at: www.acponline.org/journals/news. Accessed July 5, 2001.
25. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: consumer-directed broadcast advertisements. Federal Register 1999; 62:43,171.
26. Terzian T. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Am J Law Med 1999; 25:149-167.
27. Wilkes MS, Bell RA, Kravitz RL. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact and implications. Health Aff (Millwood) 1999; 19:110-128.
28. Rosenthal MB, Berndt ER, Donohue JM, Frank RG, Epstein AM. Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:498-505.
29. National Health Council. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: overview and recommendations. Available at: http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/advocacy/dtc.paper.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2002.
30. Holmer AF. Direct-to-consumer advertising: strengthening our health care system. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:526-528.
31. Mitchell JM, Scott E. New evidence of the prevalence and scope of physician joint ventures. JAMA 1992; 268:80-84.
32. Taylor RM. Ethical aspects of medical economics. Neurol Clin 1989; 7:883-900.
33. Gotzsche PC. Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? (letter). Lancet 2002; 359:706.
34. Randel M, Pearson SD, Sabin E, Hyams T, Emanuel EJ. How managed care can be ethical. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001; 20:43-56.
35. Black PM. Medical ethics in neurology and neurosurgery. Neurol Clin 1985; 3:215-229.
36. Detrano RC, Wong ND, Doherty TM, et al. Coronary calcium does not accurately predict near-term future coronary events in high-risk adults. Circulation 1999; 99:2633-2638.
37. Nahm FKD. Neurology, technology, and the diagnostic imperative. Perspect Biol Med 2001; 44:99-107.
38. Tancredi AI. Social and ethical implications in technology assessment. In: Mc-Neil BJ, Cravalho EG, eds. Critical issues in medical technology. Boston, Mass: Auburn House, 1982.
39. What the DTC movement means to health care. Mark Health Serv 2001; 21:24-29.
40. Fuchs V. The growing demand for medical care. N Engl J Med 1968; 279:190-195.
41. Koenig BA. The technological imperative in medical practice: the social creation of a routine treatment. In: Lock M, Gordon D, eds. Biomedicine examined. Boston, Mass: Kluwer, 1988; 65-496.
42. Rothman DJ. Beginnings count: the technological imperative in American health care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997.
43. European Commission-Directorate for the Environment. Radiation protection 118: referral guidelines for imaging. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.
44. Tanne JH. American Medical Association guidelines on direct to consumer advertising. BMJ 1999; 319:805A.