Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of care and cost containment in the U.S. and U.K.

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many activities of doctors in the acute hospital sector do not improve patient outcome because they are inappropriate. Curtailing interventions that are unnecessary (because the patient is not bad enough) or are unsuccessful (because the condition is too advanced) could both save resources and improve care. Rational rationing depends on knowledge about the expected benefits of various technologies when used in different clinical circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aaron HJ, Schwartz WB. The Painful Prescription: Rational Hospital Care. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institutions, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Miller FH, Miller GAH. The painful prescription: a procrustean perspective? N Engl J Med 1986;314:1383–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jennett B. High Technology Medicine: Benefits and Burdens. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bulger RJ. In Search of the Modern Hippocrates. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jennett B. High technology medicine and quality of life. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1987;3:51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jennett B. Consumer view of medical technology in the United Kingdom. In: Shanahan M, ed. Proceedings of an International Symposium on Quality Assurance in Health Care. Chicago: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, 1987:90–2.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fuchs VR. The “rationing” of medical care. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1572–3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thurow LC. Learning to say no. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1569–72.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thurow LC. Medicine versus economics. N Engl J Med 1985;313:611–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Singer DE, Carr PL, Mulley AG, et al. Rationing intensive care: physicians responses to a resource shortage. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1155–60.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jennett B. Inappropriate use of intensive care. Br Med J 1984;289:1709–11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jennett B. Decisions to limit treatment. Lancet 1987;ii:987–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Currie CT. Life sustaining technologies and the elderly: Americans badly need geriatricians. Br Med J 1988;297:3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Williams BT. Life sustaining technology: making the decisions: learning from America. Br Med J 1989;298:978.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Engelhardt HT Jr, Rie MA. Intensive care units, scarce resources, and conflicting principles of justice. JAMA 1986;255:1159–64.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jennett B. The painful prescription [Letter to the Editor]. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1169.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brook RH, Kosecoff JB, Park RE, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: comparison of doctors' attitudes in the US and the UK. Lancet 1988;i:750–3.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ney S, Kjellstrand CM. Stopping long-term dialysis: an empirical study of withdrawal of life supporting treatment. N Engl J Med 1986;314:14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schneider EL. Options to control the rising health care costs of older Americans. JAMA 1989;261:907–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jennett B. High technology medicine and the elderly in Britain. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1987;3:491–3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Anonymous. Accounting for perioperative deaths. Lancet 1987;ii:1369–71.

  23. Callahan D. Old age and new policy. JAMA 1989;261:905–6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jennett B. Assessment of clinical technologies: importance for provision and use. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1988;4:435–45.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jennett B. Assessment of medical technologies. Lancet 1986;ii:735–6.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wennberg JE. Dealing with medical practice variations. A proposal for action. Health Aff 1984;3:6–32.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wennberg JE, Freemand JL, Culp WJ. Are hospital services rationed in New Haven or over-utilised in Boston? Lancet 1987;i:1185–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jennett B. Variations in surgical practice: welcome diversity or disturbing differences. Br J Surg 1988;75:630–1.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dawson JH. Practice variations: a challenge for physicians. JAMA 1987;258:2570.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jennett B, Teasdale G, Fry J, et al. Treatment for severe head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1980;43:289–95.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jennett B. Outcome of intensive therapy for severe head injuries: an intercentre comparison. In: Parillo JE, Ayres SM, eds. Major Issues in Critical Care Medicine. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984:207–13.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Loirat P, et al. A comparison of intensive care in USA and France. Lancet 1982;ii:642–6.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Knaus WA. Rationing, justice and the American physician. JAMA 1986;255:1176–7.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jennett B. Are ethics and economics incompatible in health care. Proceedings of the Royal College of Physicians (Edinburgh) 1987;17:190–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Institute of Neurological Sciences, University of Glasgow, G51 4TF, Glasgow, Great Britain

    Bryan Jennett

Authors
  1. Bryan Jennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jennett, B. Quality of care and cost containment in the U.S. and U.K.. Theor Med Bioeth 10, 207–215 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489439

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489439

Key words

Search

Navigation