Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
10
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1995-11-30
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Fixed costs are higher and variable costs lower for clinical laboratory testing than for alternate-site testing (AST). For AST to become cost-effective, variable costs must be reduced. Four models for accounting for the costs of clinical laboratory testing and AST are compared. A common error is to omit some of the indirect costs of a cost-per-test analysis for AST, thereby providing false claims. For a cost-per-test analysis, we recommend that identical categories be used for both the central laboratory and for AST. However, cost-per-test data alone do not completely represent institutional costs or savings associated with laboratory testing at any site.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
AIM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Oct
|
| pubmed:issn |
0003-9985
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
119
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
898-901
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2000-12-18
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1995
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Financial justification of alternate site testing.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Rush-Presbyterian St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|