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


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Enzmann, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Venta, L. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Enzmann, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Venta, L. A.

Providing Professional Mammography Services: Financial Analysis1

Dieter R. Enzmann, MD, Peter M. Anglada, MBA, Corinne Haviley, RN, MS and Luz A. Venta, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology (D.R.E.) and Lynn Sage Breast Center (C.H.), Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 676 N St Clair St, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60611; Midwest Cultural Center, Chicago, Ill (P.M.A.); and Department of Radiology, Baylor School of Medicine, Houston, Tex (L.A.V.). Received July 26, 2000; revision requested September 7; revision received October 4; accepted October 31. Address correspondence to D.R.E. (e-mail: denzmann@mednet.ucla.edu).



View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Graph depicts the relationship between contribution margin (CM) and total mammography volume for each institution for fiscal year 1998. No economy of scale effect was detectable.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Graph depicts the profit (loss) per radiologist (FTE) versus total mammography volume for each institution in fiscal year 1997. Except for one data point, the loss per FTE is quite consistent in the institutions surveyed. The mean contribution margin per FTE in fiscal year 1997 was -$69,682 (Table 1).

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Graph shows the relationship between the total FTE count and the volume of diagnostic mammograms for each institution in fiscal year 1998. The relationship between staffing needs and the volume of diagnostic mammograms is almost linear. No such relationship was seen between FTEs and the volume of screening mammograms (data not shown).

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Graph depicts the negative correlation between contribution margin (CM) and the diagnostic ratio, which is defined as the volume of diagnostic mammograms divided by the total mammography volume, for the seven institutions for fiscal year 1998. As the percentage of diagnostic mammograms increases, the contribution margin becomes more negative.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2001 by the Radiological Society of North America.