Comparative Cost Analysis: Teleurology vs Conventional Face-to-Face Clinics
To compare costs associated with teleurology vs face-to-face clinic visits for initial outpatient hematuria evaluation. The analysis included 3 cost domains: transportation, clinic operations, and patient time. Transportation cost was based on standard government travel reimbursement. Clinic staff c...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2018-03, Vol.113, p.40-44 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To compare costs associated with teleurology vs face-to-face clinic visits for initial outpatient hematuria evaluation.
The analysis included 3 cost domains: transportation, clinic operations, and patient time. Transportation cost was based on standard government travel reimbursement. Clinic staff cost was based on hourly salary plus fringe benefits. For a face-to-face clinic encounter, patient time included time spent for travel, parking, walking to and from clinic, checking in and checking out, nursing evaluation, urologic evaluation, laboratory, and waiting. Patient time cost was based on the Federal minimum wage. Provider and laboratory times were excluded from the cost analysis as these were similar for both encounters.
We included 400 hematuria evaluations: 300 teleurology and 100 face-to-face. Both groups had similar median age (63 vs 64 years, P = .48) and median travel distance/time (58 vs 54 miles, P = .19; 94 vs 82 minutes, P = .09, respectively). Average patient time was greater for face-to-face encounters (266 vs 70 minutes teleurology, P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0090-4295 1527-9995 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.034 |