AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Evens, R.
Right arrow Articles by Jost, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Evens, R.
Right arrow Articles by Jost, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 127, Issue 1, 191-198
Copyright © 1976 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Economic analysis of computed tomography units

RG Evens and RG Jost

All operating CT installations in the United States were surveyed in January 1976; data were obtained from 98 of 140 installations. Although the respondents represented 80 head units and 18 head and body units, the overwhelming experience was with head CT studies. CT equipment was installed in an average of 1.3 months, operated 64 hr per week and examined 50-55 patients per week. A downtime of 7 hr per week was reported. Radiologists are responsible for 92 of 98 installations, and 90% of installations are in a hospital. The scheduling delay averages 1.6 days for inpatients and 11.5 days for outpatients. The delay is increasing in many installations. The estimated total yearly technical cost is +325,000-+371,000 per installation, depending upon patient volume. The estimated technical cost per patient (when 50 patients per week are studied) compares favorably with the estimated net revenue per patient from the average basic technical charge (+130 compared to +138). A separate billing method is used by 59% of installations, and 76% have an extra charge for contrast injection and additional studies; 60% of patients receive contrast. The reported total charges during the last 3 months were higher in installations that (1) charged additionally for contrast, (2) were located in outpatient settings, and (3) had nonradiologists as the responsible physician. It should be emphasized that most CT installations are not independent activities and should be considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiology department or office.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1976 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.