Practice and malpractice expenses in maxillofacial prosthetics

Wiens, Jonathan P.; Cowper, Thomas R.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80117-9

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care, especially related to insurance and patient cost, have been previously reported . The cost‐effectiveness of providing maxillofacial prosthetic care has been questioned, as the cost of performing the procedure and the subsequent nonbillable global periods for completed procedures may result in diminished revenue from the perspective of the healthcare provider .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 The perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care, especially related to insurance and patient cost, have been previously reported. 9 The cost-effectiveness of providing maxillofacial prosthetic care has been questioned, as the cost of performing the procedure and the subsequent nonbillable global periods for completed procedures may result in diminished revenue from the perspective of the healthcare provider. 10 Although suggestions for provider compensation such as relative value unit compensation have been provided, 11 the additional cost to patients appears to be a persistent barrier to maxillofacial prosthetic care regardless of patient need for these services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancer patients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care. Study Design Multicenter, cross‐sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers. Methods Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancer patient within NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported. Results Twenty‐eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost‐related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care. Conclusions Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:409–414, 2019

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%