128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3383859)
1. High and low osmolar contrast media: who pays?
Göthlin JH
Eur J Radiol; 1988 May; 8(2):67-8. PubMed ID: 3383859
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Low-osmolality contrast media: good news or bad?
Evens RG
Radiology; 1988 Oct; 169(1):277-8. PubMed ID: 3138706
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Indications for the use of low-osmolar contrast agents.
Bloom DM
Physician Exec; 1989; 15(4):24-5. PubMed ID: 10313370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Calculation of internal costs in a department of diagnostic radiology.
Geitung JT; Göthlin JH; Uhde A; Aslaksen A
Eur J Radiol; 1988 Aug; 8(3):181-2. PubMed ID: 3139411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. New dyes' higher costs cause controversy.
Wagner M
Mod Healthc; 1989 Jan; 19(3):45. PubMed ID: 10291656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Use of low-osmolality contrast media in a price-sensitive environment.
Steinberg EP; Anderson GF; Powe NR; Sakin JW; Kinnison ML; Neuman P; White RI
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Aug; 151(2):271-4. PubMed ID: 3260719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Economic impact of low-osmolality contrast agents on radiology procedures and departments.
Evens RG
Radiology; 1987 Jan; 162(1 Pt 1):267-8. PubMed ID: 3786775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Nonionic contrast agents: clinical and cost considerations.
Wolf G
Radiol Manage; 1986 Jul; 8(3):66-8. PubMed ID: 10311703
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparability of radiology departments.
Conway JB
Radiol Manage; 1980 Apr; 2(3):14-20. PubMed ID: 10246476
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Speaking out: the new environment for radiology.
Neuhauser D
Appl Radiol; 1984; 13(3):16, 23. PubMed ID: 10310645
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. TEFRA puts the squeeze on radiology.
Falck S
Appl Radiol; 1983; 12(4):19-22, 25. PubMed ID: 10310161
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. DRG cost-per-case management. Cost-cutting drive tags imaging.
Kuntz EF
Mod Healthc; 1984 Feb; 14(3):150, 152. PubMed ID: 10310470
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Prospective reimbursement--its impact on planning in radiology.
Osborn R
Radiol Manage; 1984 Sep; 6(4):3-7. PubMed ID: 10299801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Contrast medium-induced adverse reactions: economic outcome.
Powe NR; Steinberg EP; Erickson JE; Moore RD; Smith CR; White RI; Brinker JA; Fishman EK; Zinreich SJ; Kinnison ML
Radiology; 1988 Oct; 169(1):163-8. PubMed ID: 3420254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Radiologic information management systems. System costs and savings.
Choplin RH; Boehme JM; Park WC; Maynard CD; Williams RC
Appl Radiol; 1986; 15(1):27-9, 33. PubMed ID: 10286573
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development.
Goel V; Deber RB; Detsky AS
CMAJ; 1989 Feb; 140(4):389-95. PubMed ID: 2492446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. How to "price" X rays.
Groth CD
Med Group Manage; 1980; 27(4):12-6. PubMed ID: 10247673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A strategy for radiologists dealing with DRGs.
Deffebach RR; Moorefield JM
Appl Radiol; 1984; 13(4):25-8. PubMed ID: 10310727
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Relative value accountability. "Fine tuning the 80's.".
Shapro HR
Adm Radiol; 1987 Jan; 6(1):47-8, 50. PubMed ID: 10281204
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Economics as a tool in managerial decision making.
Hayes TJ
Radiol Manage; 1979; 2(1):13-5. PubMed ID: 10244739
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
