PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ronald L Weiss

Publications and source records attributed to Ronald L Weiss.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Estimating the budgetary impact of setting the medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule at the national limitation amount.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences was commissioned by Congress to study the current system for the payment of diagnostic clinical laboratory services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. The current system was established in 1984 and has grown in complexity and is of diminishing contemporary relevance. The IOM recommended that a single, rational, nationalfee schedule be established and that it be initially based on the National Limitation Amount (NLA) currently mandated as the national fee cap. To estimate the potential budgetary impact of this recommendation, we merged the 1999 Part B Extract and Summary System and the 1999 Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). By using an estimated 193 million allowed services from this data set and the current mean fee of $9.14 per test, current spending is approximately $1,768 million. The impact of raising the CLFS to the NLA will be approximately $1,792 million, or $9.26 per test. The estimated cumulative budgetary effect, factoring in the current forecast for the Consumer Price Index, is an increase of approximately $993 million over 5 years and $2,359 million over 10 years.

Chemistry, Clinical↗
PubMed2002

Automated transport and sorting system in a large reference laboratory: part 1. Evaluation of needs and alternatives and development of a plan.

BACKGROUND: Our laboratory, a large, commercial, esoteric reference laboratory, sought some form of total laboratory automation to keep pace with rapid growth of specimen volumes as well as to meet competitive demands for cost reduction and improved turnaround time. METHODS: We conducted a systematic evaluation of our needs, which led to the development of a plan to implement an automated transport and sorting system. We systematically analyzed and studied our specimen containers, test submission requirements and temperatures, and the workflow and movement of people, specimens, and information throughout the laboratory. We performed an intricate timing study that identified bottlenecks in our manual handling processes. We also evaluated various automation options. RESULTS: The automation alternative viewed to best meet our needs was a transport and sorting system from MDS AutoLab. Our comprehensive plan also included a new standardized transport tube; a centralized automated core laboratory for higher volume tests; a new "automation-friendly" software system for order entry, tracking, and process control; a complete reengineering of our order-entry, handling, and tracking processes; and remodeling of our laboratory facility and specimen processing area. CONCLUSIONS: The scope of this project and its potential impact on overall laboratory operations and performance justified the extensive time we invested (nearly 4 years) in a systematic approach to the evaluation, design, and planning of this project.

Automation↗
PubMed2002

Automated transport and sorting system in a large reference laboratory: part 2. Implementation of the system and performance measures over three years.

BACKGROUND: Our laboratory implemented a major automation system in November 1998. A related report describes a 4-year process of evaluation and planning leading to system installation. This report describes the implementation and performance results over 3 years since the system was placed into use. METHODS: Project management software was used to track the project. Turnaround times of our top 500 tests before and after automation were measured. We compared the rate of hiring of employees and the billed unit per employee ratio before and after automation by use of linear regression analysis. Finally, we analyzed the financial contribution of the project through an analysis of return on investment. RESULTS: Since implementation, the volume of work transported and sorted has grown to >15,000 new tubes and >25,000 total tubes per day. Median turnaround time has decreased by an estimated 7 h, and turnaround time at the 95th percentile has decreased by 12 h. Lost specimens have decreased by 58%. A comparison of pre- and post-implementation hiring rates of employees estimated a savings of 33.6 employees, whereas a similar comparison of ratios of billed units per employee estimated a savings of 49.1 employees. Using the higher figure, we estimated that the $4.02 million cost of the project would be paid off approximately 4.9 years subsequent to placing the system into daily use. CONCLUSIONS: The overall automation project implemented in our laboratory has contributed considerably to improvement of key performance measures and has met our original project objectives.

Automation↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effectively managing your reference laboratory relationship.

Clinical laboratories use reference laboratories for laboratory services that they, themselves, routinely are unable to provide, often for economic and/or competency-related reasons. Decisions on reference laboratory providers usually are based upon reputation, quality of service, depth of test menu, other value-added services, testing frequency and turnaround time, price, client services support, information technology support, and logistics. The referring laboratory also is faced with the challenge of how to manage physician ordering patterns and their requests for esoteric testing. This is particularly important and problematic in cases of questionable medical necessity, high cost, or both. This article attempts to address this dilemma and how best to manage the utilization of expensive esoteric tests, particularly in the face of little or no reimbursement for these services by payers and health plans.

Contract Services↗