Literature DB >> 6804722

The efficacy of second-opinion consultation programs: a cost-benefit perspective.

H S Ruchlin, M L Finkel, E G McCarthy.   

Abstract

This study evaluates a mandatory second-opinion consultation program administered on behalf of a large Taft-Hartley welfare fund providing medical care coverage for 120,000 beneficiaries and covered dependents. During a two-year intake period (1977-1978), 2,284 individuals received second-opinion consultations for an elective surgical procedure recommended by a first-contact physician or surgeon. Of this group, 366 received a nonconfirmation of their need for surgery. Medical claims data were available for 342 individuals in this group, and they constitute the base for the current analysis. A comparable number of individuals who received a positive confirmation were randomly selected and served as a control for estimating program savings. Both groups were followed for a one-year period from the date of their consultations. Total program savings were estimated at $534,791. Of this amount, medical care utilization savings were $361,756 and productivity savings were $173,035. The cost of the program was $203,300, yielding a benefit-cost ratio of 2.63. These findings indicate that mandatory second-opinion consultation programs, which are consumer oriented and intervene before care is rendered, are clearly cost-effective.

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6804722     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198201000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  9 in total

1.  The reliability of cost-utility estimates in cost-per-QALY league tables .

Authors:  S Petrou; M Malek; P G Davey
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Unnecessary surgery.

Authors:  L L Leape
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Seeking a second medical opinion: composition, reasons and perceived outcomes in Israel.

Authors:  Liora Shmueli; Nadav Davidovitch; Joseph S Pliskin; Ran D Balicer; Igal Hekselman; Geva Greenfield
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2017-12-08

4.  What doctors think about the impact of managed care tools on quality of care, costs, autonomy, and relations with patients.

Authors:  Marie Deom; Thomas Agoritsas; Patrick A Bovier; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Histopathologic review of previously negative prostatic core needle biopsies following a new diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate by core needle biopsies: implications for quality assurance programs.

Authors:  Jay Patel; Lester J Layfield
Journal:  Clin Med Pathol       Date:  2008-09-16

6.  Managed care: Practice, pitfalls, and potential.

Authors:  Stanley S Wallack
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  1992-03

7.  The cost-saving effect of centralized histological reviews with soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, GIST, and desmoid tumors: The experiences of the pathologists of the French Sarcoma Group.

Authors:  Lionel Perrier; Pauline Rascle; Magali Morelle; Maud Toulmonde; Dominique Ranchere Vince; Axel Le Cesne; Philippe Terrier; Agnès Neuville; Pierre Meeus; Fadila Farsi; Françoise Ducimetière; Jean-Yves Blay; Isabelle Ray Coquard; Jean-Michel Coindre
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The Value of a Second Opinion for Breast Cancer Patients Referred to a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Center with a Multidisciplinary Breast Tumor Board.

Authors:  Denise Garcia; Laura S Spruill; Abid Irshad; Jennifer Wood; Denise Kepecs; Nancy Klauber-DeMore
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Second opinion utilization by healthcare insurance type in a mixed private-public healthcare system: a population-based study.

Authors:  Liora Shmueli; Erez Shmueli; Joseph S Pliskin; Ran D Balicer; Nadav Davidovitch; Igal Hekselman; Geva Greenfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-27       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.