Author
Listed:
- David M. Bishai
- Daron G. Ferris
- Mark S. Litaker
Abstract
Objective. This study establishes the least costly strategy for evaluation of rural women in need of colposcopy among 3 alternatives: telemedicine, local practitioners, and referral experts. Methods. Women in rural Georgia who needed colposcopy were examined by an expert colposcopist on site, by a local practitioner, and by a distant expert colposcopist linked by telemedicine. Independent determinations of biopsy intent were used to model the differing biopsy costs of the 3 methods. Record reviewdetermined the average total cost of telemedicine. Reports of average cost in year 2000 dollars from societal perspective include medical costs and pain and suffering due to additional biopsies and curettage, telemedicine costs, and costs of potential diagnostic delay for a 1-year time horizon. Results: From the societal perspective in the baseline case, the average cost per patient evaluated was $270 for patients seen by referral experts. The cost was $38 less (e.g., $232) for patients seen by local practitioners, and $35 more (e.g., $305) for patients seen by telemedicine. From the societal perspective, local practitioners were less costly than referral experts because of lower travel costs for patients, but from the medical perspective, their average cost was $32 higher than referral experts because they performed more biopsies and curettage procedures than experts. Telemedicine assistance would have lowered the number of biopsies performed by local practitioners, but as of year 2000 the costs of this technology could not be justified by the savings. Conclusion. From the societal perspective, local practitioners performing colposcopy are the least costly way to evaluate cervical abnormalities in rural patients with substantial time and travel costs.
Suggested Citation
David M. Bishai & Daron G. Ferris & Mark S. Litaker, 2003.
"What Is the Least Costly Strategy to Evaluate Cervical Abnormalities in Rural Women? Comparing Telemedicine, Local Practitioners, and Expert Physicians,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(6), pages 463-470, November.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:463-470
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03260136
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:463-470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.