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.
22. Going after favorable PRO determinations. Gosfield AG Cost Containment; 1985 Oct; 7(19):3-6. PubMed ID: 10273714 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Non-delegated utilization review offers control and objectivity. Fine A Contract Healthc; 1988 Jun; ():23. PubMed ID: 10290598 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. How to set up a focused utilization review effort. Payne S Bus Health; 1987 Nov; 5(1):32-4, 36. PubMed ID: 10312227 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
27. 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]
28. Group hopes to cut costs by monitoring hospital stays. Bus Insur; 1983 Mar; 17(11):33. PubMed ID: 10273341 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. How one hospital gained PSRO delegated review status. Stukalin RL; Pomrinse SD Hosp Med Staff; 1976 Dec; 5(12):1-5. PubMed ID: 10273023 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Hospitals coping with the shadow of peer review. Tokarski C Mod Healthc; 1989 Dec; 19(52):22-4, 30, 33-5. PubMed ID: 10296739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Model screening criteria for the review of surgical procedures and associated care rendered by podiatrists. July 1975. J Am Podiatry Assoc; 1975 Dec; 65(12):1143-80. PubMed ID: 1238457 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. New yardsticks. Standard indicators of hospital activity have failed to keep pace with changes in hospitals and in the practice of medicine. Phillip J Health Manage Q; 1990; 12(4):14-7. PubMed ID: 10108412 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Government, PROs racing to implement tough review system. Wallace C Mod Healthc; 1984 Oct; 14(13):44-50. PubMed ID: 10299719 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. The impact of a cybernetic control system on inappropriate admissions. Studnicki J; Stevens CE QRB Qual Rev Bull; 1984 Oct; 10(10):304-11. PubMed ID: 6438575 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]