Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Managed Competition”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

Towards a reinforced agency role of health insurers in Belgium and The Netherlands.

This article describes some recent developments in health insurance in Belgium and the Netherlands. Both countries are moving towards greater financial responsibility of health insurers by means of risk-adjusted capitation payment systems. Although for the unwary observer it would appear as if both countries were following similar paths towards a common model, the authors make clear that rather different underlying rationales are driving these trends. In the Netherlands, the grand design 'Dekker proposal' for regulated competition has been replaced by a more gradual implementation of reforms with more limited scope. The ultimate goal remains a system of managed competition, albeit only for part of the health care services. In Belgium, prospective risk-adjusted capitation payment has always been at the heart of the original system in principle since its inception, but non-enforcement led to retrospective and inequitable financing in practice. Although the rhetoric of managed competition has never been used explicitly in any Belgian official government policy document, it seems unlikely that putting the insurers at financial risk without simultaneously also reinforcing their agency role by providing instruments for care management-like, for example, selective contracting--is viable in the longer run without jeopardizing the solvency of the insurers. The authors conclude that although the logic of the managed competition model is appealing, the lack of conclusive empirical evidence of success elsewhere makes governments reluctant to surrender their traditional cost containment tools. But making insurers financially accountable without simultaneously providing them with tools to take on the accountability seems useless and illogical.

Belgium↗

Managing the managed care market competition.

Market competition among rival managed care plans has been rapidly changing the health care delivery of individual provider organizations, Local health care markets, and the American health care system. Yet, there are critical unanswered questions about managed care, and there are economic and structural problems inherent in health care markets. Thus, managed care market competition alone might not be sufficient to solve some important problems and meet the important goals of our health care system and society. Market competition, combined with some regulation to managed the competition, is more likely to achieve those goals. Market competition among managed care plans is described, and problems of this type of competition are explained in this article. One approach to managing the managed care market competition, which blends market competition with government regulation, is also presented.

Capitation Fee↗

On values and democratic policy making: the deceptively fragile consensus around market-oriented medical care.

Market-oriented strategies, embodied in managed competition, have become the primary focus of contemporary U.S. health policy. This dominance reflects the emergence of a bipartisan coalition of support among political elites. This study traces the historical evolution of elite support for the market and suggests that the consensus favoring managed competition is deceptively fragile, with support riven by cleavages in the values used to judge fairness in the allocation of medical care. A unique data set of matched questions asked of both policy elites and the general public is used to document these differences in ethical norms. The implications of these cleavages help to explain three puzzling aspects of contemporary U.S. health policy: (1) the persisting inability to translate the principles of managed competition into politically feasible reforms, (2) the repeated failures to implement demonstration projects intended to test competitive pricing within the Medicare program, and (3) the inability of state regulations to assuage the public's concerns about managed care. Some prescriptions for a more revealing and effective treatment of market reforms in health policy conclude this study.

Consensus↗

The effect of market structure on HMO premiums.

We examine the effects of HMO market structure on HMO premiums from 1988 to 1991. More competition, measured by the number of HMOs in the market area, reduces HMO premiums. Although this effect does not appear for IPAs before the highest level of competition is reached, it appears throughout the competitive range for Group HMOs. More market penetration, measured by the percent of the market area population enrolled in HMOs, reduces premiums for IPAs. Since the goal of managed competition is to reduce health care costs by creating competition among managed health care plans, our results offer encouragement for managed competition advocates.

Capitation Fee↗

Organ transplantation and the inevitable debate as to what constitutes a basic health care benefit.

The need for health care reform is an economic reality. The urgency with which it must be pursued is apparent. The direction it will take is clear. The implications it has for transplantation are ambiguous. Managed competition will take time to implement, but managed care is here now and will surely become more prevalent. Thus, it is timely to examine the future of transplantation from the perspective of managed care. Foremost among our concerns is just how transplantation will factor into the debate as to what constitutes a basic health care benefits package. The National Cooperative Transplantation Study (NCTS) was undertaken to address a variety of clinical, economic, social, ethical, and quality-of-care issues. Based on a random sample of all transplants performed in the United States in 1988, individual assessments were made of charges for kidney, heart, liver, heart-lung, and pancreas transplantation. Insurance coverage and reimbursement policies and practices were also analyzed. In 1988 dollars Medicare procedure charges from date of transplant through date of initial discharge were as follows: kidney, $39,625; heart, $91,570; liver, $145,795; heart-lung, $134,881; and pancreas, $66,917. Both patient charges and outcomes were adversely affected by the patient's status prior to surgery, and by the need for retransplantation. The associations among transplant program activity, procedure charges, and patient outcomes varied. While insurance coverage for transplantation has steadily improved, hospital reimbursement is often well below billed charges, as a result, access for some patients may be limited. Organ transplantation is often criticized as too costly, given other health care needs. A recent report indicates that the total first-year charges for transplantation continue to increase. Estimated charges in 1993 dollars are as follows: kidney, $87,700; heart, $209,100; liver, $302,900; heart-lung, $246,000; pancreas, $65,000; and lung, $243,600. Although expensive, transplantation can be equally if not more cost-effective than other accepted therapeutic approaches for the treatment of catastrophic disease. Nonetheless, under managed care and capitated payment it will be essential that the high cost of transplantation be addressed. To reduce charges, enhance patient outcomes, and improve access patient selection policies must be reconsidered. Currently, those patients who are least likely to benefit, yet whose treatment cost the most, are given priority for transplantation. While this approach may be clinically indicated, it is socially unacceptable. Managed care and managed competition will force physicians and surgeons to adopt a more conservative and cost-efficient practice style. The patients who stand to benefit most are those whose needs are consistent with the principles of cost effectiveness.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Cost Allocation↗

Using integration technology as a strategic advantage.

The underlying premise of the Managed Competition Act previously cited is that through managed competition providers will be forced to lower care costs while increasing the level of positive care outcomes. Because it may also be that tomorrow's hospitals will find a severe rationing of technology, what can they do to prepare? Most of the systems in place today already have built within them all the necessary potential to address this premise and technology requirement with no change, no conversion, no expense for new equipment and software, and no disruption in day-to-day operations, just a little re-engineering. Today, however, these systems are similar to a 20-mule team pulling in different directions: all the power is there, but the wagon remains motionless and totally unable to reach its objective. It takes a skilled wagonmaster to bring them together, to make the mules work as a cohesive unit, to make the power of 20 mules greater than the sum of 20 mules. So it is and will be for the hospital of tomorrow. System integration is no longer a question of whether but of when. Those hospitals that use it today as a strategic advantage will be in a better position tomorrow to use it as a competitive strategic advantage in an environment that will reward low cost and high positive care outcomes and will penalize those that cannot compete. The technology is already here and economically within reach of nearly every hospital, just waiting to be used. The question that must nag all of us who want to make the health care system of America better is, Why not make the when now? Rich Helppie, president of Superior Consultant Company, summarized the solution well: The old ways will not give way to the new overnight. The re-engineering process in healthcare must evolve. Compared to the last 20 years, however, such evolution may appear to be a massive, forthright, complete, comprehensive, drastic and rapid revolution. Survival is the name of the game, and for healthcare organizations to survive, they must join the re-engineering revolution. When that happens, the "Americanized" health care system might look like the community network shown in Figure 7, which is a networked integration of all the systems used in the community working together and exchanging information, with hospitals exchanging information with other hospitals and sharing it with physicians, clinics, laboratories, radiology centers, universities, employers, payors, and governmental agencies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Computer Communication Networks↗

Health care spending: can the United States control it?

Health care spending in the United States has continued to outpace the growth in national income and the growth in spending in other countries. And yet many Americans are without sufficient health care. Since the failure of national health care reform proposals put forward by the Clinton administration and others, the United States has had to look for other solutions to the problem of how to control spending in this sector. Can the new competitive approach of managed care succeed where other cost control measures of the past have failed? This chapter begins with an examination of the problems facing health care today, outlines recent trends in health care spending, and details reasons why spending is rising so rapidly at this time. The historical context of health care reform proposals and government attempts to control spending are described next and the reasons why some of these plans made no progress are explained. The health care payment systems of other industrialized nations that have seen some success in controlling costs are analyzed. Comparison of these systems with proposed plans for reforming the U.S. system provide insights and lessons for the United States. Finally, the chapter describes managed care and managed competition and makes the argument that managed care has the potential to respond to many of the health care spending problems facing the United States. However, more data on this subject are needed, and the authors call for a national monitoring entity to assess the progress of managed care in meeting the health care needs of the public.

Cost Control↗

Physician perceptions of health care reform: national versus state knowledge, input and support.

Health care reform directly impacts physicians and the practice of medicine. A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 2,000 physicians in the state of Florida to obtain physician perceptions of health care reform. Physician knowledge, input, and support of both state and national health care reform were reported in the lowest categorizations. Issues deemed most important for support were tort reform and physician autonomy. The approach of the Florida plan, managed competition, was viewed as ineffective in addressing the issues of cost and access. Experience with the managed competition model and objective evaluations may alter perceptions and increase physician support.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

Health-adjusted premium subsidies in the Netherlands.

The Dutch government has decided to proceed with managed competition in health care. In this paper we report on progress made with health-based risk adjustment, a key issue in managed competition. In 2004 both Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCGs) computed from hospital diagnoses only and Pharmacy-based Cost Groups (PCGs) computed from out-patient prescription drugs are used to set the premium subsidies for competing risk-bearing sickness funds. These health-based risk adjusters appear to be effective and complementary. Risk selection is not a major problem in the Netherlands. Despite the progress made, we are still faced with a full research agenda for risk adjustment in the coming years.

Fees and Charges↗

Combining a global health budget with a market-driven delivery system. Can it be done?

Two correlated problems, rampant escalation of health-care costs and the lack of access to health care for many Americans, challenge long-term solutions to our health-care crisis. Historically, free markets have provided the most effective method of controlling costs. Although the current health-care system is highly competitive, it falls far short of being a truly competitive marketplace emphasizing competition around cost and quality. A health-care system based on managed competition in which the marketplace is structured to create competition on cost and quality provides great promise for regulating health costs. Erosion of health-care benefits under our current system of employer-based health insurance threatens the effectiveness of any market-based solution. The 21st Century Health Care Act combines the cost-effectiveness and universal access derived through a single revenue spigot with the power of a market approach created by managed competition.

Delivery of Health Care↗

Antitrust exemption: are health providers crying wolf?

Demands by health providers for relief from federal antitrust law have reached a new high as they examine the likely impact of managed competition on the way they do business. Indeed, the American Medical Association endorsed managed competition on the condition that doctors get an antitrust exemption; the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association recently said that drug makers needed to discuss prices before they could hold back increases. But the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency, has shown no signs of revising its antitrust measures to reflect the enormous changes that lie before the health industry.

American Hospital Association↗

'Manacled competition': market reforms in German health care.

In 1993 Germany joined the small but swelling ranks of societies determined to explore managed competition as a means of slowing the growth of health spending by giving stakeholders new incentives for efficiency. Realizing the benefits of competition, however, demands changes in institutional norms and regulatory practices that now largely handcuff those who would follow competitive logic into "managed care." In time Germany's system of "manacled competition" may evolve into a happy higher synthesis of managed care and managed competition. Or policymakers may conclude that the political price of installing workable market forces in health care is too high and reconcile themselves to more traditional applications of political pressure.

Cost Control↗

Survey of health planning proposals.

It is important that physicians participate in the debate and planning process that will ultimately guide how we reform the way health care is financed and delivered in the United States. Herein is offered a perspective on the problem, one which is not necessarily appreciated by health planners. While we deliver the best quality of care in the world to most of our population, our system has been severely criticized because we fail to provide for access to a substantial minority of our population. Additionally, the cost of the product is considerably greater than that in comparable countries. Attempts to control costs without diminishing quality have introduced expensive complexities into our system without any real success in cutting costs. Several proposals have been advanced to address the issues of cost and access. One of these is a single payer system, common in Europe and Canada, whereby a single agent or group of agents finances all health care through universal rules and means. A system operating in Hawaii is a simple employer mandate to provide health insurance. A uniquely American plan is the Jackson Hole Plan or Managed Competition (now called "Managed Cooperation"). This system is currently popular among national health planners, and involves a defined minimum managed health plan offered by various groups of providers to employees and individuals through health plan purchasing cooperatives. This plan is interesting, but has not been implemented in any jurisdiction, and it is not certain it would accomplish its goals in practice since it is difficult to predict behavior of all parties to such a system.

Health Care Costs↗