These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10273714)

  • 1. Going after favorable PRO determinations.
    Gosfield AG
    Cost Containment; 1985 Oct; 7(19):3-6. PubMed ID: 10273714
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The controversial PSRO program: delegation of review authorization. Part II.
    Weissburg C; Waxman JM
    Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1981; 14(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 10273237
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. PRO-hospital contracts: the last chance to ease burden of reviews.
    O'Hare PK; Collier G
    Mod Healthc; 1984 Oct; 14(13):54-8. PubMed ID: 10299720
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The relationship between the Professional Standards Review Organizations and the State Health Department.
    McGarvey MR
    Bull N Y Acad Med; 1982; 58(1):114-21. PubMed ID: 7052175
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. PSROs: boon or burden?
    Sims RL
    OH; 1976 Sep; 20(9):8-10. PubMed ID: 10273199
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Priorities in utilization review.
    Jones B
    Hosp Peer Rev; 1978 Apr; 3(4):50-1. PubMed ID: 10307590
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Organizing for utilization review.
    Newmark GL
    Hospitals; 1975 Mar; 49(6):22. PubMed ID: 1167842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Care level and timeliness review--an approach to curbing inappropriate hospital utilization.
    Edwards AB
    Top Health Care Financ; 1981; 7(3):47-60. PubMed ID: 7193922
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. PRO claims reviews provide a closer look at medical necessity.
    Hosp Peer Rev; 1983 Apr; 8(4):48-9. PubMed ID: 10273346
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review organizations expected to have major impact on UR.
    Hosp Peer Rev; 1982 Nov; 7(11):136-7. PubMed ID: 10273331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. PSRO: an evaluation of the Professional Standards Review Organization.
    J Medicaid Manage; 1977; 1(3):87-9. PubMed ID: 10308911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. PRO review of hospital admissions of Medicare patients.
    Akhter MN
    Mo Med; 1985 Mar; 82(3):123-6. PubMed ID: 3919255
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The new economics of PSRO review: an uncertain future.
    Luecke RW; Freeman JK
    Hosp Financ Manage; 1981 Apr; 35(4):56-8, 60, 62. PubMed ID: 10273247
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Utilization review altered to advantage.
    Brown DE; Levy JD
    Hospitals; 1980 Mar; 54(5):83-6. PubMed ID: 7188763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. PROs explore changes in current review process.
    Politser P
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1991 Apr; 76(4):24-6, 29. PubMed ID: 10109750
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The economics of delegated vs. nondelegated PSRO review.
    Luecke RW
    Hosp Financ Manage; 1980 Jul; 34(7):24-30. PubMed ID: 10273228
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Utilization review: surveillance reduces admissions.
    Dodds JJ
    Hospitals; 1974 Dec; 48(23):52-5. PubMed ID: 4473419
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. PSRO Involvement: guidelines for hospitals.
    Savage JM
    Hosp Top; 1980; 58(6):12-5, 48. PubMed ID: 10273232
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A patient care review model to suit both hospitals and PSROs.
    Thompson RE
    Hospitals; 1980 Aug; 54(16):61-3. PubMed ID: 7190542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. What the toughest of the PROs is doing to doctors.
    Frederick L
    Med Econ; 1985 Jul; 62(15):76-83. PubMed ID: 10300192
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.