This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

WAYNE F. LARRABEE, MD
Virginia Mason Clinic, Seattle, Wash

ARLEN D. MEYERS, MD, MBA; Denver

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117(5):474.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Second surgical opinion programs evolved in the early 1970s in an attempt to address the variations in practice patterns. With the recognition that the rates of surgery varied appreciably and independently of the health status of the patients studied, plans were devised to weed out the "unnecessary" surgery being performed. As the years have passed, however, the focus on quality assurance has shifted to cost containment, and, with it, the structure and intent of surgical second opinion programs. The increasing presence of managed care and an increasing burden of accountability from patients, payors, and regulators translates into facial plastic surgeons having to more frequently deal with the issues surrounding the structure and effectiveness of second surgical opinion programs.

Analysis of the effectiveness of second opinion programs has revealed some consistent trends. First, the structure of the program, in large part, determines the likelihood of its success. Important factors include whether . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?