The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine
Abstract
Prologue: Within public policy circles, high-technology medical care has been viewed as a curse and a blessing because of its capacity to consume an ever-increasing share of resources and the wonders it works in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Although opinions abound about its value, far less is understood about the processes of innovation and the multiple forces that encourage or impede technologic development. In this paper Annetine Gelijns and Nathan Rosenberg discuss these processes, underscoring the diverse influences to which they are subjected. Gelijns is an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery and School of Public Health at Columbia University. She is associate director of the Center for Health Outcomes and Innovation Research in Surgery there. Gelijns holds a doctorate in medicine and science policy from the University of Amsterdam and a master of law degree from the University of Ley den, the Netherlands. Rosenberg is a professor of economics at Stanford University. He has devoted much of his career to the study of innovation in different industrial sectors and is considered to be a preeminent authority on the economics of technological change. Gelijns and Rosenberg describe innovation as a dynamic process that is greatly influenced by a close interaction between developers and users, by changes in financing and delivery modes, and by shifting patterns of medical specialization. The processes of innovation involve a wide range of actors and interests, which operate under different incentives and time lines. This paper argues that it is not possible to establish the causal connections between technological change and rising medical costs without first understanding the dynamics of innovation. Abstract: This paper contrasts a dynamic and interactive view of technological change with the linear model of medical innovation that is still so deeply ingrained in many policy discussions. In particular, it focuses on the role of feedback mechanisms between the users and the developers of medical technology and the demand and supply forces (including competition among medical specialties) determining this feedback. It explores three distinct mechanisms by which technological change may contribute to rising health care spending: intensity of use of existing technology, introduction of new technologies, and expanded application of these new technologies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Concentration Of Health Care Expenditures, Revisited
Berk, M. L., & Monheit, A. C. (2001) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.2.9 · Cited by 369
Using users: When does external knowledge enhance corporate product innovation?
Chatterji, A. K., & Fabrizio, K. R. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2168 · Cited by 309
Kumar, G. S., & Klein, R. (2013) · The Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.08.035 · Cited by 221
Metadata
- Authors
- Gelijns, A., & Rosenberg, N.
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 28-46
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2052649009
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1377/hlthaff.13.3.28
- The paper
- Gelijns, A., & Rosenberg, N. (1994). The Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine. Health Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.13.3.28
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.