<menuitem id="hln37"><dfn id="hln37"></dfn></menuitem>

    <listing id="hln37"><big id="hln37"><progress id="hln37"></progress></big></listing>

                <address id="hln37"><progress id="hln37"><progress id="hln37"></progress></progress></address>

                  <address id="hln37"></address>
                  <form id="hln37"></form>

                      <dfn id="hln37"><th id="hln37"></th></dfn><thead id="hln37"></thead>
                      <big id="hln37"></big>
                      <address id="hln37"><listing id="hln37"><address id="hln37"></address></listing></address>

                      Explicit and implicit copayments for phototherapy

                      Type:Uv phototherapy   Time:2014-11-17 14:59:35
                      Explicit and implicit copayments for phototherapy: examining the cost of commuting.
                      Yentzer BA1, Gustafson CJ, Feldman SR.
                      Author information
                      Whereas phototherapy is a safe and cost-effective treatment modality for psoriasis, economic disincentives discourage its 

                      use, including both direct and indirect costs to the patient.
                      To determine when it may be cost-effective for patients to purchase a home light unit versus driving to clinic for outpatient 

                      phototherapy sessions.
                      Estimates of expenses associated with 3 months of outpatient phototherapy were determined and compared to the price of a home 

                      phototherapy unit. Factors examined included the cost of gasoline (based on the national average), fuel efficiency of the 

                      vehicle, cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle, lost wages, and copayments.
                      The cost for a standard 6-bulb narrowband UVB home unit is approximately $2600. Direct and indirect expenses imposed on 

                      patients increase with distance travelled to the dermatologist. If a patient lives 20 or more miles away from the 

                      dermatologist, the expenses associated with travel can total more than the out of pocket expense of purchasing a home 

                      phototherapy unit.
                      This small analysis only accounted for the first 3 months of treatment and likely underestimates the total costs that 

                      patients would experience over a lifetime of treatment.
                      It may be beneficial for physicians to educate patients on the cost-burden of in-office versus home phototherapy because 

                      patients can use these parameters to determine which option would be more cost-effective for them.

                      www.superogira.com----The leader manufacturer of UV Phototherapy.