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.
124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3919255)
1. PRO review of hospital admissions of Medicare patients. Akhter MN Mo Med; 1985 Mar; 82(3):123-6. PubMed ID: 3919255 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. PRO-hospital contracts: the last chance to ease burden of reviews. O'Hare PK; Collier G Mod Healthc; 1984 Oct; 14(13):54-8. PubMed ID: 10299720 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A peer review of a peer review organization. Dippe SE; Bell MM; Wells MA; Lyons W; Clester S West J Med; 1989 Jul; 151(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 2669350 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Utilization review in the United States: results from a 1976-1977 national survey of hospitals. Gertman PM; Monheit AC; Anderson JJ; Eagle JB; Levenson DK Med Care; 1979 Aug; 17(8 Suppl):i-iii, 1-148. PubMed ID: 381795 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. PSRO: an evaluation of the Professional Standards Review Organization. J Medicaid Manage; 1977; 1(3):87-9. PubMed ID: 10308911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
9. 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]
10. Whither the PRO? Analysis of the effectiveness of three Medicare peer review organizations in a Florida hospital. Fleegler BM; Wolk M; McCarville J J Fla Med Assoc; 1995 Mar; 82(3):203-5. PubMed ID: 7738525 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
14. New Medicare review system an option for private sector. Garrigan LA Bus Insur; 1986 Feb; 20(7):45-6. PubMed ID: 10324862 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Use these data to target medically unnecessary services. Capitation Rates Data; 1998 Mar; 3(3):25-8. PubMed ID: 10345855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The PRO utilization and quality review process: an overview--Part I. Politser P Bull Am Coll Surg; 1989 May; 74(5):17-22. PubMed ID: 10303472 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Medicare program; Peer Review Organizations: revised scopes of work for Delaware, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming--HCFA. Final notice. Fed Regist; 1991 Sep; 56(171):43790-3. PubMed ID: 10113846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The evaluation of Professional Standards Review Organizations: their part in the struggle to assure appropriate health care. Davis FA Bull N Y Acad Med; 1982; 58(1):67-76. PubMed ID: 6810978 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Recidivism in the management of medical back pain. Vogel TT; Renz KK; Bennett MS Top Health Rec Manage; 1990 Sep; 11(1):76-9. PubMed ID: 10120715 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Implications of Medicare hospital utilization trends for long term home health care. Kelly JT; Shea MA; Ross JE Pride Inst J Long Term Home Health Care; 1987; 6(2):14-7. PubMed ID: 10301751 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]