Key result
The Connecticut Peer Review Organization program of pacemaker review resulted in a dramatic reduction in the insertion of permanent pacemakers among Medicare patients.
Why the study?
Does a peer review program reduce the insertion of permanent pacemakers in Medicare patients?
Observational
Does a peer review program reduce the insertion of permanent pacemakers in Medicare patients?
A structured peer review program for pacemaker indications can dramatically reduce permanent pacemaker insertions in the Medicare population.
Peer review may curb unnecessary pacemaker insertions in Medicare patients; leaves open generalizability and need for prospective trials.
Cardiac pacemaker insertions experienced an explosive growth in utilization following the introduction of this highly beneficial technology. Cost considerations prompted critical evaluation of the appropriateness of their use and raised the specter of potential abuse. The Connecticut Peer Review Organization (CPRO) program of pacemaker review to Medicare patients, based on physician input, criteria setting, dissemination of information, and specialist peer review, resulted in a dramatic reduction in the insertion of permanent pacemakers with minimal need for denials and appeals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edward A. Kamens (1989) conducted an observational in Medicare patients considered for cardiac pacemaker insertion. Connecticut Peer Review Organization (CPRO) program of pacemaker review was evaluated on Insertion of permanent pacemakers. The Connecticut Peer Review Organization program of pacemaker review resulted in a dramatic reduction in the insertion of permanent pacemakers among Medicare patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: