210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10298675)
1. Competition: California takes the lead.
Wash Rep Med Health; 1982 Sep; ():1-4. PubMed ID: 10298675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Hospital head gets brunt of referral battle.
Perry L
Mod Healthc; 1989 Aug; 19(32):38. PubMed ID: 10294196
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Price competition will be legacy of California's Medi-Cal 'czar'.
Johnson DE
Mod Healthc; 1982 Sep; 12(9):52-4. PubMed ID: 10298664
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Selective contracting in California: experience in the second year.
Johns L; Anderson MD; Derzon RA
Inquiry; 1985; 22(4):335-47. PubMed ID: 2934329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. New face at the bargaining table.
McCann RW; Tomaselli LA
Hospitals; 1983 Oct; 57(20):75-9. PubMed ID: 6352455
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. When 'preferred' becomes 'exclusive'.
Gibbons DL; Ismach JM
Med World News; 1983 Feb; 24(4):65-6. PubMed ID: 10299163
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Medi-Cal-fostered competition seen as control on costs, incentive to increase hospital efficiency.
Lipschultz C
Health Law Vigil; 1983 May; 6(10):suppl 1-3. PubMed ID: 10298923
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Provider participation in competitive bidding for indigent patients.
Christianson JB
Inquiry; 1984; 21(2):161-77. PubMed ID: 6237997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. California selective provider contracting program: two-tier medicine here we come, right back where we started from.
Liset JR
Health Law Vigil; 1983 May; 6(10):suppl 4-6. PubMed ID: 10298924
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Medi-Cal contracting: model or mayhem?
Friedman E
Hospitals; 1984 Aug; 58(15):74-8. PubMed ID: 6376328
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Hospitals should enter exclusive contracts for the right reasons.
Holthaus D
Trustee; 1989 May; 42(5):17. PubMed ID: 10293083
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Losing the battle but winning the war: the North Dakota Hospital Assn. decision.
Miles JJ
Health Law Vigil; 1986 Sep; 9(18):5-7. PubMed ID: 10300949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Restraint of trade through hospital exclusive contracts: an economic appraisal of the legal theory.
Lynk WJ
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1984; 9(2):269-79. PubMed ID: 6491230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dealers win on two counts vs. AHSC.
Bale CJ
Med Prod Sales; 1982 May; 13(5):1, 17-8, 22-3. PubMed ID: 10255350
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Alberta laundry competes with commercial for the right to continue its in-house plant.
Ballinger J
Laund News; 1985 Dec; 11(12):3. PubMed ID: 10274634
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde: return to reality in economic power analysis in tying cases.
Bern RC
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1986 Aug; 8(6):7-35. PubMed ID: 10277805
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Access loss forces Medicaid strategy evaluation.
Larkin H
Hospitals; 1989 Oct; 63(20):22, 24-5. PubMed ID: 2676829
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Marketing middlemen can be held liable if they regularly sell hospital supplies.
Decker R
Hosp Mater Manage; 1989 Sep; 14(9):20-1. PubMed ID: 10294709
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Progress report on hospital cost control in California. More regulation than competition.
Petersdorf RG
N Engl J Med; 1983 Jul; 309(4):254-6. PubMed ID: 6346095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Selective contracting in California: early effects and policy implications.
Johns L; Derzon RA; Anderson MD
Inquiry; 1985; 22(1):24-32. PubMed ID: 2933330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
