PubMed · 10155821
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R McGachey. Purchasing new equipment? Be informed.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10155821/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: As health care budgets continue to face close scrutiny, any new acquisition must be evaluated for both costs and outcomes. This study was undertaken to demonstrate the application of an economic framework for the evaluation of a multileaf collimator as an example of a new technology that can have both quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits for patients, staff, and cancer care institutions. METHODS: Using financial data from the Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre (NEORCC) and a recognized staffing model, a commercial spreadsheet, developed to economically characterize the principal radiotherapy processes has been used to determine the net incremental annual cost of a multileaf collimator (MLC). RESULTS: The incremental annual cost of purchasing an MLC is estimated at approximately $85,000 (1997 CDN $). Without increasing patient throughput, this increases the average cost of a course of radiotherapy by approximately CDN $200. Savings can be accrued by decreasing mold room activity, increasing the hourly patient capacity on each treatment machine, and decreasing sick time due to strain injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Although the clinical outcome of techniques facilitated by MLCs, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are unknown at this time, an economic context within which to objectively evaluate this technology is presented. The framework presented suggests a method of quantifying outcome-justified expenditures, such as improved patient outcome and greater treatment flexibility, which, when offset against the incremental annual equipment cost, may be used to help justify the acquisition of multileaf technology.
Healthcare traditionally has been described as not conforming to the laws of economics. Consumers pay for aesthetic surgery directly, thus freeing it from the usual confounding factors and making it more likely to comply with the market forces explained by economics. Recent studies have demonstrated the ability of classic economics to analyze, predict, and optimize the financial environment of aesthetic surgery. This article describes economic principles and how they can be applied to aesthetic surgery. Some of the basic instruments of economics include the study of supply and demand, prices, and price elasticity; capital investments; communication and cooperation; and consumer cognitive limitations. Each of these tools offers plastic surgeons the opportunity to gain improved control of their financial environment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.