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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 5577422)

  • 1. More about peer review.
    Overstreet SA
    J Ky Med Assoc; 1971 Apr; 69(4):283-4. PubMed ID: 5577422
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Medical review--friend or foe?
    Essrig IM
    JFMA; 1973 Mar; 60(3):34-40. PubMed ID: 4687254
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Antitrust implications of peer review of fees.
    Jones KB
    Pa Med; 1982 Nov; 85(11):18. PubMed ID: 6891042
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sounding board. Incentive bonuses in prepayment plans.
    Geist RW
    N Engl J Med; 1974 Dec; 291(24):1306-8. PubMed ID: 4431436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. PSRO--Professional Standards. Review Organization.
    J Tenn Med Assoc; 1973 Oct; 66(10):977-92. PubMed ID: 4796022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Antitrust implications of chiropractic Peer Review Committees.
    Volper V
    Am J Law Med; 1982; 8(1):45-68. PubMed ID: 7124747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Prevention of dissipation of health services resources.
    Garfield SR
    J Indiana State Med Assoc; 1972 Oct; 65(10):1078-83. PubMed ID: 4561403
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The auguish of peer review.
    Rountree CB
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1978 Apr; 67(4):287. PubMed ID: 650099
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Health-care reform and antitrust. A primer for physicians.
    Harty-Golder B; Garland RR
    J Fla Med Assoc; 1993 May; 80(5):351-4. PubMed ID: 8315410
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The centrality of professionalism to health care.
    Freidson E
    Jurimetrics; 1990; 30(4):431-45. PubMed ID: 11651273
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The advantages and need for peer surveillance of health care. Whither now?
    Hampton HP
    J Kans Med Soc; 1972 Jan; 73(1):1-4passim. PubMed ID: 5060448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Statement for the Tennessee Medical Association.
    Mills WD
    J Tenn Med Assoc; 1973 Jun; 66(7):619-21. PubMed ID: 4718998
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Professional standards review organization.
    Bennett WF
    J Ky Med Assoc; 1973 Feb; 71(2):96-100. PubMed ID: 4687469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Containing health care costs: ethical and legal implications of changes in the methods of paying physicians.
    Capron AM; Brock DW; Cassell EJ
    Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1985-1986; 36(4):708-77. PubMed ID: 11650769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. PSRO or nothing?
    Manry WE
    JFMA; 1973 Jul; 60(7):88-90. PubMed ID: 4736606
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fee-for-service deserves another chance.
    Schrenzel SN
    Med Econ; 1989 Jul; 66(13):18, 20-1, 24. PubMed ID: 10293384
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. President's message.
    Hackman ET
    R I Med J; 1973 May; 56(5):201. PubMed ID: 4513592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Industry looks at utilization review.
    Anderson J
    Ala J Med Sci; 1985 Oct; 22(4):403-7. PubMed ID: 4073391
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fee for service.
    Chaney EJ
    Kans Med; 1988 Jun; 89(6):160, 162, 164. PubMed ID: 3398385
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review of fees by physician groups: antitrust issues.
    Scott M
    Health Law Vigil; 1986 Jul; 9(14):5-8. PubMed ID: 10277308
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.