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.
42. Health care quality improvement in Florida. Ashkar F; Barnett J J Fla Med Assoc; 1998 Apr; 85(1):6-7. PubMed ID: 9782718 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. Medicare program; appeal rights and procedures for beneficiaries enrolled in prepaid health care plans--HCFA. Final rule. Fed Regist; 1994 Nov; 59(223):59933-43. PubMed ID: 10138801 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Quality of ambulatory care for the elderly: formulating evaluation criteria. Ferris AK; Wyszewianski L Health Care Financ Rev; 1990; 12(1):31-8. PubMed ID: 10113460 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Reporting of CAHPS quality information to medicare beneficiaries. Goldstein E; Fyock J Health Serv Res; 2001 Jul; 36(3):477-88. PubMed ID: 11482585 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Medicare PROs and the assessment of quality: should physician-specific quality data be released to consumers? Baker N J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Apr; 25(4):97-109, 117. PubMed ID: 10123435 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. Medicare and Medicaid programs; entities performing quality of care review of services provided by risk-basis health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans--HCFA. Final rule with comment period. Fed Regist; 1987 Oct; 52(194):37454-8. PubMed ID: 10301903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. 'Gotcha' gives way to guidance. Quality improvement behind plan to change Medicare review groups' image. Lovern E Mod Healthc; 2001 Dec; 31(51):20. PubMed ID: 11808048 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Perspectives. Cops or colleagues? Fuzzy standards for judging PROs. Cunningham R Faulkner Grays Med Health; 1996 May; 50(20):suppl 1-4. PubMed ID: 10156158 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Assessment of quality of services in private clinics in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Afework S; Mariam DH; Demeke B Ethiop Med J; 2003 Jul; 41(3):267-78. PubMed ID: 15227892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. The role of the PROs. Scala M Issue Brief Cent Medicare Educ; 2001; 2(2):1-8. PubMed ID: 11859894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Solo practice goes paperless. A Chicago physician improves efficiency and patient care with an integrated EMR. Stammer L Healthc Inform; 2002 Feb; 19(2):64. PubMed ID: 12827807 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Standards development: a three-phase collaborative effort. Jt Comm Perspect; 1993; 13(5):8-10. PubMed ID: 10130639 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Problems arising between physicians in private practice and medicare. Zaslow J Leg Med; 1985; ():357-66. PubMed ID: 3915050 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Choosing between public and private or between hospital and primary care: responsiveness, patient-centredness and prescribing patterns in outpatient consultations in Bangkok. Pongsupap Y; Van Lerberghe W Trop Med Int Health; 2006 Jan; 11(1):81-9. PubMed ID: 16398759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. PRO changes under the fourth scope of work for Medicare. Kingsley DI N J Med; 1991 Jul; 88(7):499-500. PubMed ID: 1891129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]