Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print December 2, 2002, 10.1148/radiol.2261012047
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2261012047v1
226/1/63    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mayo-Smith, W. W.
Right arrow Articles by Dorfman, G. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mayo-Smith, W. W.
Right arrow Articles by Dorfman, G. S.
(Radiology 2003;226:63-68.)
© RSNA, 2002

Health Policy and Practice

Transportable versus Fixed Platform CT Scanners: Comparison of Costs1

William W. Mayo-Smith, MD, James T. Rhea, MD, MBA, Wendy J. Smith, RTR, Cynthia M. Cobb, RTR, Ilana F. Gareen, PhD and Gary S. Dorfman, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University School of Medicine, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI 02903 (W.W.M.S., W.J.S., C.M.C., G.S.D.); Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (J.T.R.); and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI (I.F.G.). From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received December 14, 2001; revision requested January 25, 2002; revision received March 21; accepted May 13. Supported in part by a grant from the Philips Corporation. Address correspondence to W.W.M.S. (e-mail: wmayo-smith@lifespan.org).

PURPOSE: To compare the aggregate hospital technical costs of a transportable computed tomographic (CT) scanner used to image patients in an intensive care unit with those of a fixed platform CT scanner in the radiology department.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct fixed costs (ie, machine and service contract costs) and direct variable costs (ie, personnel costs) were calculated. Indirect costs, including space costs and departmental overhead, were calculated. Total costs were calculated as the sum of indirect, direct fixed, and direct variable costs. Personnel costs were calculated from time-motion analyses involving 95 patients who underwent brain CT with either a transportable (n = 51) or a fixed platform (n = 44) CT scanner. Costs per examination were calculated by using both low- and high-examination-volume models and compared with use of the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS: The total cost per examination for the transportable scanner ranged from $108.98 to $167.20 for the high- and low-volume models. Total cost per examination for the fixed platform scanner ranged from $75.24 to $112.39 for the high- and low-volume models. For the transportable scanner, direct fixed, variable, and overhead costs were $87.05, $70.73, and $9.42 per examination, respectively, with the low-volume model. The corresponding costs for the fixed platform scanner were $46.66, $55.69, and $10.04, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The technical cost of using an in-hospital transportable CT scanner is higher than that of using a fixed platform scanner.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), utilization • Cost-effectiveness • Economics, medical • Radiology and radiologists, socioeconomic issues






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2003 by the Radiological Society of North America.