At 13:02 11/10/2010, you wrote:
>I think you are stretching too hard for a line there. Based on that
>data there may simply be no correlation (or at the very least too many
>confounding factors to make it meaningful).
Isn't the onus on those who want referral management (beyond the
system of having primary care and referrals to secondary care that is
a major plus in the UK) to show that the extra cost is worth it?
If there is no correlation, referral management is NOT value for
money. If Roger's hypothesis is right it's even worse, but ONLY if
there was a clear correlation about reduced first referrals reducing
costs without harming health would it be legitimate.
Julian
|