The relative value of provider work for maxillofacial prosthetic services

Cowper, Thomas R.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90488-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cost‐effectiveness of providing maxillofacial prosthetic care has been questioned, as the cost of performing the procedure and the subsequent nonbillable global periods for completed procedures may result in diminished revenue from the perspective of the healthcare provider . Although suggestions for provider compensation such as relative value unit compensation have been provided, the additional cost to patients appears to be a persistent barrier to maxillofacial prosthetic care regardless of patient need for these services. Cost bundling, which has been successfully utilized in other sectors to provide medical services, may ultimately be a solution to facilitate patient access for maxillofacial prosthetic services within a comprehensive cancer center treatment team.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancer patients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care. Study Design Multicenter, cross‐sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers. Methods Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancer patient within NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported. Results Twenty‐eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost‐related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care. Conclusions Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:409–414, 2019

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Materials and techniques in maxillofacial prosthodontic rehabilitation

Huber

Studer

2002

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Casemix Classification as an Alternative Method for Budget Allocation in Thai Oral Healthcare Service: A Pilot Study

Wisaijohn

Pimkhaokham

Lapying

et al. 2010

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to develop a new casemix classification system as an alternative method for the budget allocation of oral healthcare service (OHCS). Initially, the International Statistical of Diseases and Related Health Problem, 10th revision, Thai Modification (ICD-10-TM) related to OHCS was used for developing the software “Grouper”. This model was designed to allow the translation of dental procedures into eight-digit codes. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the factors used for developing the model and the resource consumption. Furthermore, the coefficient of variance, reduction in variance, and relative weight (RW) were applied to test the validity. The results demonstrated that 1,624 OHCS classifications, according to the diagnoses and the procedures performed, showed high homogeneity within groups and heterogeneity between groups. Moreover, the RW of the OHCS could be used to predict and control the production costs. In conclusion, this new OHCS casemix classification has a potential use in a global decision making.

show abstract

The relative value of provider work for maxillofacial prosthetic services

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Materials and techniques in maxillofacial prosthodontic rehabilitation

New Casemix Classification as an Alternative Method for Budget Allocation in Thai Oral Healthcare Service: A Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About