Tim,
I have to agree with you.  The hospital across the street have two
benchmarks and the bills are strangling the lab budget.  The same doctors
run the private lab that I'm in and they requested that a demo be brought to
PRL.  When I ran a cost analysis on what Ventana gave them, and what I came
up with, it was quite an eye opener. I did like the ease of the machine.  I
think it was great taking the slides from the oven, performing HIER and
immunos all at the same time, but the cost was too high.

Joe Nocito BS, HT (ASCP) QIHC
Histology Manager
Pathology Reference Lab
San Antonio, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morken, Tim" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:20 AM
Subject: Justification of Ventana Benchmark


> Jan, I believe you when you say it is a good instrument and you get good
> results, but again, how did you justify this particular instrument when
> competing instruments are just as good, fast and easy to use (at least
from
> my own experience), but cost much less, both to buy and to operate? Again,
> I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm just curious how the
> justification was done.
>
> Tim Morken
> Atlanta.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janice A Mahoney [mailto:jmahoney@alegent.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:06 PM
> To: tim9@cdc.gov; APROCTOR.CMHMAIL.MAILBOX@northeastmedical.org;
> histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Subject: RE: Ventana Benchmark
>
>
> The quality. reproducibility, and ease of operation are excellent.  It
> is truly a "walk-away" instrument.  The ability to complete staining
> runs in several hours and to operate overnight make up for the limited
> number of slides tit holds.  We actually have several modules and the
> special stainer.  The Pathologists are very happy with the results.  I
> would probably have an uprising in the lab if we tried to replace it
> with something else.
> You are right.   It does cost more but we still make money doing IHC.
>    I have also found the Ventana support to be excellent.
> Jan Mahoney
> Omaha NE
> GO HUSKERS !!
>
> >>> "Morken, Tim"  12/27/2002 12:07:37 PM >>>
> I am curious to know how the cost of a Benchmark is justified when it
> is
> twice the price and does less than half the number of slides of
> competing
> units, and (apparently) requires the use of  proprietary reagents that
> cost
> more? We have looked at the Ventana units before but always went in
> other
> directions (fast!) after quotes were given.
>
> Tim Morken
> Atlana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janice A Mahoney [mailto:jmahoney@alegent.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 12:36 PM
> To: APROCTOR.CMHMAIL.MAILBOX@northeastmedical.org;
> histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Subject: Re: Ventana Benchmark
>
>
> It is wonderful.  We love it.
> Jan Mahoney
> Omaha NE
>
> >>> Alisha Proctor 
> 12/27/2002 11:12:11 AM >>>
> Our lab director is interested in purchasing the Ventana Benchmark.
> Does
> anyone have an opinion about it?
>
>