PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10138951

Initiating a regional laboratory network.

Abstract

Wherever we look--on television, in national and local newspapers, or within our own institutions and communities--the biggest issue facing health-care providers is integration. The Clinton plan virtually mandates integrated services, and many individual states are moving ahead rapidly with their own programs. Mandated purchasing alliances will require network services that are focused on cost savings and broad access to the medical system. The incentive to form collaborative medical networks defies our tradition of actively competing for patients and reimbursement dollars. Hospital and physician office laboratories, along with small independent laboratories, face both their greatest challenge and their best opportunity in the changing health-care environment. Those choosing to take up the gauntlet thrown down in the Clinton Administration's commitment to reform will be uniquely positioned to survive and thrive; those who dig their heels firmly into past paradigms will be swept away by the tide of economic change. Whether mandated by law or forged into being by the heat of economic pressure, the formation of integrated care networks positioned to vie for health-care dollars seems inevitable. Some states, including Florida, Washington, and Minnesota, have already passed legislation that anticipates national reform by virtually mandating integrated health-care services. Others are contemplating similar action, and the economic impact is already apparent in a lower-than-projected increase in health-care costs. How can community laboratories position themselves to participate in this rapidly changing environment? Most experts agree that laboratory services must roll themselves into total health-care programs and operate regionally to compete with the national, for-profit conglomerates.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D L Nigon. Initiating a regional laboratory network.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10138951/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990-2004.

BACKGROUND: Studies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years. METHODS: We conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990-2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics. RESULTS: The fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state evaluations. CONCLUSION: Many of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Optimal nonpoint source pollution control strategies for a reservoir watershed in Taiwan.

The purpose of this study is to develop a model for optimal nonpoint source pollution control for the Fei-Tsui Reservoir watershed in Northern Taiwan. Several structural best management practices (BMPs) are selected to treat stormwater runoff. The complete model consists of two interacting components: an optimization model based on discrete differential dynamic programming (DDDP) and a zero-dimensional reservoir water quality model. A predefined procedure is used to locate suitable sites for construction of various selected BMPs in the watershed. In the optimization model, the objective function is to find the best combination of BMP type and placement, which minimizes the total construction and operation, maintenance, and repair (OMR) costs of the BMPs. The constraints are the water quality standards for total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in the reservoir. A zero-dimensional reservoir water quality model of the Vollenweider type is embedded in the optimization framework to simulate pollutant concentrations in Fei-Tsui Reservoir. The resulting optimal cost and benefit of water quality improvement are depicted by the model-derived trade-off curves. The modeling framework developed in the present study could be used as an efficient tool for planning a watershed-wide implementation of BMPs for mitigating stormwater pollution impact on the receiving water bodies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Use of modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an analytic tool that provides a framework for comparing the health benefits and resource expenditures associated with competing medical and public health interventions, thereby allowing decision makers to identify interventions that yield the greatest amount of health, given their resource constraints. Models are important components of most, if not all, CEAs, and they play a key role in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs, in particular. In this article, we describe the basic types of models used to evaluate cancer screening programs and provide examples of the use of models in CEAs and to guide cancer screening policy. Finally, we offer some suggestions for important concepts to consider when interpreting model results.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗