Design of a privileging program for diagnostic imaging: Costs and implications for a large insurer in Massachusetts

Radiology

Volumn 208, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 385-392

  Verrilli, Diana K ^a   Bloch, Stephen M ^a   Rousseau, Jeanine ^a   Crozier, Matthew E ^a   Yecies, Steven B ^a  

^a Radiology Management Sciences ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Economics, medical; Radiology and radiologists

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; PREFERRED PROVIDER ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 0031830269     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.208.2.9680564     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Levin DC. The practice of radiology by non-radiologists: cost quality and utilization issues. AJR 1994; 162:513-518.
2. Hillman BJ, Olson GT, Colbert RW, Bernhardt LB. Responses to a payment policy denying professional charges for diagnostic imaging by nonradiologist physicians. JAMA 1995; 274:885-887.
3. Hillman BJ, Joseph CA, Mabry MR, et al. Diagnostic imaging in office practice: a comparison of self-referring and radiologist referring physicians. N Engl J Med 1990; 323:1604-1608.
4. Thrall JH. Perspective: the radiologist in the 1990s - new practice expectations and management responsibilities. AJR 1994; 163:11-15.
5. Sunshine JH, Bansal S, Evens RG. Radiology performed by non-radiologists in the United States: who does what? AJR 1993; 161:419-429.
6. Hillman BJ, Olson GT, Griffith PE, et al. Physicians' utilization and charges for outpatient diagnostic imaging in a Medicare population. JAMA 1992; 268:2050-2054.
7. Rubin HR, Rogers WH, Kahn KL, et al. Watching the doctor watchers: how well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems? JAMA 1992; 267:2349-2354.
8. Kessler HB. Managed care and the radiologist: expectations and future trends. AJR 1994; 163:1-3.
9. AHCPR program note: clinical practice guideline development. Publication no. 93-0023. Washington, DC: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1993.
10. American College of Radiology. Appropriateness criteria for imaging and treatment decisions. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1995.
11. Iglehart JK. The National Committee for Quality Assurance. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:995-999.
12. McLelland R, Hendrick RE, Zinninger MD, et al. The American College of Radiology mammography accreditation program. AJR 1991; 157:473-479.
13. Nightingale SL. From the Food and Drug Administration: new mammography quality standards issued. JAMA 1994; 271:179.
14. Friedman DP, Rosetti GF, Flanders AK, et al. MR imaging: quality assessment method and ratings at 33 centers. Radiology 1995; 196:219-226.
15. Evan H. Doctors who perform fetal sonograms often lack sufficient training and skill. Wall Street Journal 1995; Jun 20:sect B:1.
16. Hooper KD, Rossetti GF, Edmiston RB, et al. Diagnostic radiology peer review: a method inclusive of all interpreters of radiographic examinations regardless of specialty. Radiology 1991; 180:557-561.
17. Seltzer SE, Holman BL, Thrall JH, Bramson RT, Roller W. Academic radiology in a networked environment. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:865-872.
18. Melnick GA, Zwanziger J. State health care expenditures under competition and regulation, 1980 through 1991. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:1391-1396.
19. Christensen S. Volume responses to exogenous changes in Medicare's payment policies. Health Serv Res 1993. 27:65-79.
20. Escarce J. Effects of lower surgical fees on the use of physician services under Medicare. JAMA 1993; 269:2513-2518.