HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2362040673v1 236/2/420    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reiner, B. I. Articles by Musk, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reiner, B. I. Articles by Musk, A.

Multi-institutional Analysis of Computed and Direct Radiography

Part II. Economic Analysis¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Md (B.I.R., E.L.S., F.J.H., K.M.S., A.M.); Department of Radiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (B.I.R., E.L.S.); and Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (D.S.). Received April 12, 2004; revision requested June 18; revision received August 13; accepted November 30. Supported in part by an industry research grant from Fuji Medical Systems USA. Address correspondence to B.I.R., 6 Greenleaf Ln, Seaford, DE 19973 (e-mail: breiner1{at}comcast.net).

PURPOSE: To compare economic aspects of equipment configurations, productivity levels, and patient waiting times in the performance of computed radiography (CR) and direct radiography (DR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study received internal review board exemption status, without the need for informed patient consent. Data from four study sites were used to calculate the CR-DR crossover point (defined as the point at which the cost-effectiveness of DR equals that of CR) and CR-DR annual cost differentials. Analyzed variables included equipment and operating costs, examination volumes, and productivity. A program was developed to simulate patient arrival times, number of patient examinations, and patient waiting times on the basis of average annualized parameters for each of the four clinics. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess utilization rates and determine cost optimization. Utilization rates were compared with the number of excess long-stay CR patients (ie, patients who spent more than 30 minutes waiting in the radiology department prior to CR examination) and with the cost (per excess long-stay CR patient who waited more than 60 minutes) averted by using DR.

RESULTS: Excess annual costs for DR over CR at the four sites ranged from $50 757 to $75 303. At extrapolated levels of economic penalties for long waiting times, the crossover point at which the DR cost became justifiable was when CR capacity utilization rates approached or exceeded 80%.

CONCLUSION: In the current practice environment, with capacity utilization rates well below 80%, CR is likely to be a more cost-effective technology for the majority of general radiography providers.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, F. J. Hooper, K. M. Siddiqui, A. Musk, L. Walker, and A. Chacko Multi-institutional Analysis of Computed and Direct Radiography: Part I. Technologist Productivity Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 413 - 419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]