Abstract
In this historical analysis of low- and high-osmolar contrast agents, we outline the reasons for the price depreciation, speculate on motivation for universal adoption by many radiologists despite suboptimal reimbursement, and cast light on important shortcomings of economic analyses in the realm of health policy. Early economic analyses regarding low-osmolar contrast agents concluded that universal adoption was not cost-effective. Over time, the price differential between low- and high-osmolar agents narrowed, yet reimbursement patterns lagged behind the narrowing price differential.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
