ACLS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ramsey, G
Right arrow Articles by Blumberg, N
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ramsey, G
Right arrow Articles by Blumberg, N
Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, Vol 13, Issue 1, 55-58
Copyright © 1983 by Association of Clinical Scientists


Articles

The type and screen: are patient charges a valid measure of cost reduction?

G Ramsey, C Desley, K Ross, K Peck, J Spennachio, and N Blumberg

Previous studies of the type and screen have employed reduction in patient charges as a measure of cost savings. Actual cost reductions were estimated as well as patient charge reductions, for the type and screen in a large university medical center with 38,519 cross-matches and 18,152 red cell containing transfusions (C/T = 2.12) in 1980. If the type and screen had been implemented for elective surgical procedures with C/T greater than 2, the C/T for these services would have fallen from 2.82 to 2.17. If use of the type and screen were extended to obstetrics patients, the total surgical and obstetrical patient charges would be reduced by $51,752, but only $9,232 or less in actual cost reduction would have accrued. The type and screen does not lead to significant decreases in labor or overhead costs which are the largest component of patient charges. Patient charge savings are not a valid measure of actual cost reduction in our setting.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1983 by the Association of Clinical Scientists.