Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 1990 Apr;25(1 Pt 2):177–196.

A comparison of in-house and regionalized computerized tomography scanning: clinical impact and cost.

A Elixhauser 1, D M Reker 1, K N Gillespie 1, J Fletcher 1, F D Wolinsky 1
PMCID: PMC1065620  PMID: 2109740

Abstract

Over a two-year interval, computerized tomography (CT) scans at an urban, 400-bed Department of Veterans Affairs medical center (VAMC) were obtained in three ways. First, an in-house low-efficiency machine was used. Then, scans were done at another area hospital, in effect duplicating some aspects of regionalizing services. Finally, a high-efficiency in-house machine was used. Clinical outcomes and costs of diagnosing 181 bronchogenic cancer patients were compared across the three time periods to identify any differences associated with regionalization of CT services. Patient groups were homogeneous with respect to sociodemographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and severity of disease. The first part of the analysis investigated whether the site of CT scanning affected clinical outcomes. Diagnostic procedures, surgical results, mortality, and length of stay were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Significant differences were found only for conventional tomography and CT utilization rates. While conventional tomography declined across the periods, CT utilization increased, exceeding national trends. The second part of the analysis examined the costs of CT scanning. During the regionalized period, the hospital paid a fixed fee of $519 per scan. Estimated costs of in-house scans were $285 in the low-efficiency and $141 in the high-efficiency periods. Charge-based payments made to the external facility and differences in the volumes of patients scanned internally account for the cost differences. The analysis showed that while regionalized CT scanning did not compromise the quality of care for these VA patients, it was more costly. Results suggest that VA hospital administrators should carefully consider ownership and payment arrangements when comparing regionalized and in-house provision of services.

Full text

PDF
177

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abrams H. L., McNeil B. J. Computed tomography: cost and efficacy implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978 Jul;131(1):81–87. doi: 10.2214/ajr.131.1.81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Banta H. D. The diffusion of the computed tomography (CT) scanner in the United States. Int J Health Serv. 1980;10(2):251–269. doi: 10.2190/6D17-3UAU-RAM1-NVTR. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron R. L., Levitt R. G., Sagel S. S., White M. J., Roper C. L., Marbarger J. P. Computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of bronchogenic carcinoma. Radiology. 1982 Dec;145(3):727–732. doi: 10.1148/radiology.145.3.7146404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartlett J. R., Neil-Dwyer G., Banham J. M., Cruickshank D. G. Evaluating cost-effectiveness of diagnostic equipment: the brain scanner case. Br Med J. 1978 Sep 16;2(6140):815–820. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6140.815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Evens R. G., Jost R. G. Economic analysis of computed tomography units. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1976 Jul;127(1):191–198. doi: 10.2214/ajr.127.1.191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Evens R. G., Rujanavech N., Mikhael M. A. Utilization, reliability, and cost effectiveness of cranial computed tomography in evaluating pseudotumor cerebri. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1977 Aug;129(2):263–265. doi: 10.2214/ajr.129.2.263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fineberg H. V., Wittenberg J., Ferrucci J. T., Jr, Mueller P. R., Simeone J. F., Goldman J. The clinical value of body computed tomography over time and technologic change. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983 Nov;141(5):1067–1072. doi: 10.2214/ajr.141.5.1067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Friedman P. J. Computed tomography in lung cancer. Am J Surg. 1982 Jun;143(6):685–690. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(82)90036-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Knaus W. A., Schroeder S. A., Davis D. O. Impact of new technology: the CT scanner. Med Care. 1977 Jul;15(7):533–542. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197707000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Larson E. B., Omenn G. S. The impact of computed tomography on the care of patients with suspected brain tumor. Med Care. 1977 Jul;15(7):543–551. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197707000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lewis E., Bernardino M. E., Valdivieso M., Farha P., Barnes P. A., Thomas J. L. Computed tomography and routine chest radiography in oat cell carcinoma of the lung. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1982 Aug;6(4):739–745. doi: 10.1097/00004728-198208000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Schwartz W. B., Joskow P. L. Duplicated hospital facilities: How much can we save by consolidating them? N Engl J Med. 1980 Dec 18;303(25):1449–1457. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198012183032504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sones P. J., Jr, Torres W. E., Colvin R. S., Meier W. L., Sprawls P., Rogers J. V., Jr Effectiveness of CT in evaluating intrathoracic masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982 Sep;139(3):469–475. doi: 10.2214/ajr.139.3.469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stern B. J., Hirsch S. M., Krumholz A., Orr S. T., Weiss H. D., Sajor E., Berman J. Regional sharing of CT scanners: experience in a community hospital. Md State Med J. 1984 May;33(5):387–392. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wortzman G., Holgate R. C., Morgan P. P. Cranial computed tomography: An evaluation of cost effectiveness. Radiology. 1975 Oct;117(1):75–77. doi: 10.1148/117.1.75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES