Ophthalmology · 1994
Diagnostic management by gatekeepers is not cost effective for neuro-ophthalmology.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dillon E C, Sergott R C, Savino P J, Bosley T M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether the "gatekeeper physician system" for evaluating neuro-ophthalmologic problems is cost effective.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of 588 patients referred for neuro-ophthalmologic evaluation between July and December 1989 to determine the frequency and cost of unnecessary diagnostic testing ordered by "gatekeeper physicians." Pre-referral diagnostic testing costs were compared with the cost of neurophthalmologic consultation for four common problems: (1) optic neuropathy; (2) diplopia; (3) ptosis; and (4) proptosis.
RESULTS: Between 16% and 26% of patients in the first three diagnostic categories were subjected to overtesting, resulting in $57,900 of excessive costs, a 724% overcharge. Although the evaluation of proptosis was performed correctly, the quality of 10 of the 18 neuro-imaging procedures was substandard.
CONCLUSIONS: The gatekeeper system managed by primary care physicians for these four neuro-ophthalmologic problems not only did not conserve healthcare dollars but also had a negative impact on cost control. For neuro-ophthalmologic disorders, prompt subspecialty evaluation and examination appear to be a cost-effective strategy.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of 588 patients referred for neuro-ophthalmologic evaluation between July and December 1989 to determine the frequency and cost of unnecessary diagnostic testing ordered by "gatekeeper physicians." Pre-referral diagnostic testing costs were compared with the cost of neurophthalmologic consultation for four common problems: (1) optic neuropathy; (2) diplopia; (3) ptosis; and (4) proptosis.
RESULTS: Between 16% and 26% of patients in the first three diagnostic categories were subjected to overtesting, resulting in $57,900 of excessive costs, a 724% overcharge. Although the evaluation of proptosis was performed correctly, the quality of 10 of the 18 neuro-imaging procedures was substandard.
CONCLUSIONS: The gatekeeper system managed by primary care physicians for these four neuro-ophthalmologic problems not only did not conserve healthcare dollars but also had a negative impact on cost control. For neuro-ophthalmologic disorders, prompt subspecialty evaluation and examination appear to be a cost-effective strategy.