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.
2. Medicare program; utilization and quality control peer review organizations--imposition of sanctions on health care practitioners and providers of health care services--HCFA. Final rule. Fed Regist; 1985 Apr; 50(74):15335-47. PubMed ID: 10299990 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Watchdog on a short chain. How good are PPS's quality-of-care reviewers? Kotelchuck R Health PAC Bull; 1987 Jun; 17(3):19-22. PubMed ID: 10301612 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. One peer review organization's experience in developing hospital peer groups. Sumner BM; Thompson MS; Suarez WG; Davis M; Bell JA; Shanedling SB Clin Perform Qual Health Care; 1993; 1(4):239-42. PubMed ID: 10135642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Medicare program; utilization and quality control peer review organizations; imposition of sanctions on health care practitioners and providers of health care services--HCFA. Proposed rule. Fed Regist; 1984 Apr; 49(76):15233-40. PubMed ID: 10299475 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How close is North Carolina to meeting Medicare's clinical priorities? Kelley M; McArdle J; Weiser R; Simpson R N C Med J; 2001; 62(4):212-9. PubMed ID: 11468985 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Medicare program; utilization and quality control peer review organization (PRO) reconsiderations and appeals--HCFA. Final rule. Fed Regist; 1985 Apr; 50(74):15364-74. PubMed ID: 10299992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Denial of payment for poor quality care. Missouri's PRO explains Medicare's latest requirement. Akhter MN; Jaco D Mo Med; 1987 Mar; 84(3):137-40. PubMed ID: 3334407 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Texas Medical Foundation strives for quality medical care. Fitch JF Tex Med; 1989 Mar; 85(3):67-8. PubMed ID: 2652370 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Providers question PROs' effectiveness. Critics contend peer review organizations are too costly and fail to improve the quality of care. Rothschild RD Health Prog; 1992; 73(6):28-32, 38. PubMed ID: 10119535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. PSROs: origins, directions, and changing assumptions. Smits H Bull N Y Acad Med; 1982; 58(1):11-8. PubMed ID: 7052174 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Medicare program; acquisition, protection, and disclosure of utilization and quality control peer review organization (PRO) information--HCFA. Final rule. Fed Regist; 1985 Apr; 50(74):15347-64. PubMed ID: 10299991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. New developments at the Connecticut Peer Review Organization. Meehan TP Conn Med; 1993 Aug; 57(8):533-5. PubMed ID: 8243082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review organizations. Promises and potential pitfalls. Dans PE; Weiner JP; Otter SE N Engl J Med; 1985 Oct; 313(18):1131-7. PubMed ID: 3930964 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Medicare program; utilization and quality control peer review program; solicitation of comments on proposed PRO program scope of work--HCFA. Notice. Fed Regist; 1985 Nov; 50(218):46702. PubMed ID: 10300403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Medicare program; Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Program; third Scope of Work for Peer Review Organizations. J Tenn Med Assoc; 1989 Feb; 82(2):78-81. PubMed ID: 2648073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality assurance in health care--the federal government: PSRO. Munier WB Am J Hosp Pharm; 1974 Jul; 31(7):660-3. PubMed ID: 4605000 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]