312 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10289925)
1. Payment reform's impact on quality of hospital products.
Erickson JE; Neuman PN; Anderson GF; Powe NR; Steinberg EP
Hosp Mater Manage; 1988 Sep; 13(9):20-3. PubMed ID: 10289925
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The change in importance of hospital purchase decision criteria as a result of prospective payment.
Baer R; Sullivan R
J Hosp Mark; 1990; 4(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 10109104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The supply chain and clinical quality.
Runy LA
Mater Manag Health Care; 2005 May; 14(5):21-6. PubMed ID: 16047455
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The last frontier: saving on M.D. preference items.
DeJohn P
Hosp Mater Manage; 2005 Jun; 30(6):1, 9-11. PubMed ID: 16018417
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Just what the doctor ordered.
Baker S; Smithson K; Schmitt S; Schaefer E; Reichert J
Healthc Financ Manage; 2003 Jul; 57(7):70-4. PubMed ID: 12866158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Equipment budgets up; spending goes toward replacement.
Anderson HJ
Mater Manag Health Care; 1992 Oct; 1(8):28, 30, 32. PubMed ID: 10125523
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Hospitals, vendors explore equipment financing.
Hard R
Hospitals; 1993 Jan; 67(2):42. PubMed ID: 8419278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. How does quality enter into health care purchasing decisions?
Goldfarb NI; Maio V; Carter CT; Pizzi L; Nash DB
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2003 May; (635):1-8. PubMed ID: 12756967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The equipment planning consultant.
Burton GD
J Healthc Resour Manag; 1996 Jun; 14(5):33-5. PubMed ID: 10158613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Most administrators fear care quality will be hurt by prospective payment.
Jackson B; Jensen J
Mod Healthc; 1984 Nov; 14(15):108-10. PubMed ID: 10273601
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The learning tree: panel mulls new contract definitions. Panel discussion.
Thompson JG; O'Connor JM; Walera E
Mater Manag Health Care; 1995 Jun; 4(6):28-30, 32. PubMed ID: 10143340
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Equipment selection in a DRG environment.
Rollo FD
Adm Radiol; 1989 Nov; 8(11):28-9, 31, 33-5. PubMed ID: 10304153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Lowest-cost alternative isn't always the best buy.
Yokl RT
Hosp Mater Manage; 2008 Oct; 33(10):10. PubMed ID: 18988469
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Results from our 1996 Product Committee Survey. Some win, some lose. Why?
Souhrada L
Mater Manag Health Care; 1996 Aug; 5(8):26-8, 30. PubMed ID: 10159559
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Full impact of DRG's not yet felt--results of a survey.
Hosp Top; 1985; 63(4):4-5. PubMed ID: 10311305
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Solving equipment conundrums.
Cantarano LF
Mater Manag Health Care; 2001 Sep; 10(9):22-4. PubMed ID: 11573303
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. New survey reveals rise in savvy equipment buyers.
Mater Manag Health Care; 1997 May; 6(5):16, 18. PubMed ID: 10167491
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Getting more value from value analysis.
OR Manager; 2007 Jun; 23(6):18. PubMed ID: 17612341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. A gown for all occasions.
Meyers S
Mater Manag Health Care; 2001 Sep; 10(9):26. PubMed ID: 11573305
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. To get better products, use a better way of choosing.
Holmgren JH
Mod Hosp; 1972 Dec; 119(6):58 passim. PubMed ID: 4670934
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
