Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Gatekeeping”

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 523 records · Page 29Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Provider choice and use of mental health care: implications for gatekeeper models.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ways in which the costs of nonresidential mental health care depend on (1) the type of provider who initiates the treatment episode and (2) the level of cost sharing imposed on the patient. STUDY SETTING: The 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey, a national probability sample of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population. DATA COLLECTION: Data were collected during four personal interviews conducted during 1987 and 1988. Key variables include the type of provider contacted at the beginning of treatment (psychiatrist, other physician, nonmedical mental health care specialist) and the cost (total actual payments from all sources) for the treatment episode. METHODS OF ANALYSIS: An episodic model of demand for mental health care is estimated using a two-step procedure. Multinomial probit analysis is first used to determine the factors that influence the choice of initial provider type. Right-censored Tobit analysis is used to determine the factors that affect the costs of care, including the type of provider who initiates the care episode. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Results indicate that out-of-pocket price does significantly (p < .05) affect the patient's initial choice of provider type but that, after controlling for the endogeneity of provider choice, price is no longer significant in explaining overall treatment costs. After controlling for selection effects, care episodes initiated by nonspecialist physicians are found to be as expensive as those initiated by psychiatrists and significantly more expensive than episodes initiated by nonphysicians. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that nonmedical mental health care specialists may be more effective than physicians in controlling costs when used as case managers in the care of persons with mental illnesses.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Managed health plan effects on the specialty referral process: results from the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network referral study.

OBJECTIVES: The specialty referral process is one of the chief targets of managed care constraints on ambulatory medical decision-making. This study examines the influence of gatekeeping arrangements and capitated primary care physician (PCP) payment on the specialty referral process in primary care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: Primary care practice-based study of referred and nonreferred office visits. SUBJECTS: The study comprised 14,709 visits made by privately insured, nonelderly patients who were seen by 139 primary care physicians in 80 practices located in 31 states. MEASURES: Visits were grouped by health plan type: gatekeeping with capitated PCP payment; gatekeeping with fee-for-service PCP payment; no gatekeeping. Dependent measures included the proportion of visits referred, characteristics of referrals, and physician coordination activities. RESULTS: The percentages of office visits resulting in a referral were similar between the two gatekeeping groups and higher than the no gatekeeping group. Patients in plans with capitated PCP payment were more likely to be referred for discretionary indications than those in nongatekeeping plans (15.5% v 9.9%, P < 0.05). The frequency of referring physician coordination activities did not vary by health plan type. The proportion of patients in gatekeeping health plans within a practice was directly related to employing staff as referral coordinators, allowing nurses to refer without physician consultation, and permitting patients to request referrals by leaving recorded telephone messages. CONCLUSION: The specialty referral process for privately insured nonelderly patients enrolled in managed health plans is generally similar, regardless of the presence of gatekeeping arrangements and capitated PCP payment. An increase in the number of discretionary referrals among patients in plans with capitated PCP payment provides support for exploring strategies that encourage PCPs to manage in their entirety conditions that straddle the boundaries between primary and specialty care. In response to increasing numbers of patients enrolled in managed health plans with gatekeeping arrangements, physicians appear to modify the structure of their practices to facilitate access to and coordination of referrals.

Capitation Fee↗
PubMed2003

Communication in general practice: differences between European countries.

BACKGROUND: Based on differences in national health care system characteristics such as the gatekeeping role of GPs (at the macrolevel) and on diverging GP and patient characteristics (at the microlevel), communication may differ between countries. Knowledge of the influence of these characteristics on doctor-patient communication will be important for setting European health care policies. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were (i) to compare doctor-patient communication in general practice between European countries; and (ii) to investigate the influence of the gatekeeping system and GP and patient characteristics on doctor-patient communication in general practice. METHODS: Fifteen patients per GP (in total 2825 patients) of 190 GPs in six European countries were included. Participating countries were The Netherlands, Spain, the UK (gatekeeping countries), Belgium, Germany and Switzerland (non-gatekeeping countries). Data were collected by means of patient and GP questionnaires and observation of videotaped consultations, and analysed by one-way and multilevel, multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Differences in communication between countries were found in: affective and instrumental behaviour; biomedical and psychosocial talk; GPs' patient-directed gaze; and consultation length. The study showed that GPs' gatekeeping role (with registered patients) was less important for doctor-patient communication than was expected. Patient characteristics such as gender, age, having psychosocial problems, and familiarity between the doctor and the patient were the most important in explaining differences in communication. CONCLUSION: The gatekeeping role of GPs is hardly important in explaining doctor-patient communication. The relationship is more complex than expected. Patient and GP characteristics are more important. Cultural factors should be included in future studies.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Obstetrician-gynecologists as primary care physicians: the perspectives of health maintenance organization medical directors and obstetrician-gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE: To survey the interest of obstetrician-gynecologists in serving as primary care physicians and their perceived preparedness for that role from the view points of managed care plans and obstetrician-gynecologists. METHODS: A sample of obstetrician-gynecologists was asked to describe their preferred physician roles in managed care plans. Managed care medical directors were asked to define the obstetrician-gynecologist's role in their health plans. The mailed survey questions focused on 1) obstetrician-gynecologists' interest in serving as primary care physicians and/or gatekeepers, 2) direct access to obstetrician-gynecologists, and 3) additional training needed to serve as primary care physicians. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of obstetrician-gynecologists expressed little or no interest in serving as primary care physicians, and 37% had some or high interest. Fifty-six percent were not interested in serving as gatekeepers, and 45% believed that physicians in the specialty should not do so. Almost all believed women should be allowed direct access to obstetrician-gynecologists. Over half of the managed care plans allowed women to refer themselves to obstetrician-gynecologists, and one-third allowed these physicians to serve as primary care gatekeepers. Most plans believed that extensive additional training is needed for obstetrician-gynecologists to serve as gatekeepers, whereas 70% of specialists believed that little or no additional training is needed. CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists do not all agree on their appropriate and preferred role as physicians in the managed care environment; 37% see themselves as primary care physicians, whereas 37% would rather act as consultative specialists. Nearly all, however, support direct access to obstetrician-gynecologists. Most (69.7%) believe that they are capable of serving as primary care gatekeepers with little or no additional training, but managed care plans believe otherwise.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

A recruitment strategy for cluster randomized trials in secondary care settings.

Trials of educational or organizational interventions to change clinical practice require cluster randomization, that is, randomization of units such as hospitals or clinical teams rather than individual patients. Cluster randomization is relatively novel in health care settings and raises new methodological challenges, in particular: are units willing to be randomized at an organizational level; and, what procedures should be followed to successfully enrol all of the clinicians in a unit rather than individual clinicians as in conventional multicentre trials. This is particularly problematic for trials of large units such as hospitals. The aim of this study was to develop and partially evaluate a strategy to recruit acute, secondary care NHS hospitals in the UK into cluster randomized trials. Literature search and interviews with senior staff in acute hospitals and relevant national organizations were used to develop a recruitment strategy. The strategy was evaluated by inviting 32 randomly selected clinical directorates to participate in a trial feasibility study. A seven step recruitment strategy was developed: (1) Identify stakeholders and gatekeepers; (2) Inform stakeholders and gatekeepers; (3) Approach gatekeepers; (4) Local negotiation; (5) Conduct the research; (6) Feedback to gatekeepers; (7) Feedback to stakeholders. Key problems were the possibility of multiple gatekeepers and identification of all possible stakeholders in varying organizational structures. The strategy was effective in two respects. First, 32 (100%) of the directorates approached agreed to participate. Second, baseline data collection was successfully achieved in all of the directorates. However, the strategy is costly in terms of time and resources. We conclude that NHS trusts are willing to participate in cluster randomized trials. This recruitment strategy is successful and could be widely adopted, but realistic time and financial cost estimates are required at the planning stage.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1993

Incentives and cost containment in primary care physician reimbursement.

The goal of capitation is to place gatekeepers at financial risk for the services the deliver. However, third party payers should provide gatekeepers with some type of protection against random and systematic risk transfer. Gatekeeper physicians' other alternative is to reduce this risk on their own by actively marketing services to healthier individuals and creating barriers to care for their sicker patients. Thus, the proper balance of risk transfer will result in the most cost-efficient, quality gatekeeper networks. However, even with the right balance of risk transfer, capitation may provide incentive for some physicians to withhold necessary services to further increase their profit margins-making quality of care a key concern. Thus, practice guidelines should be developed to ensure quality is not affected. These guidelines afford explicit criteria on how gatekeepers should respond in specific clinical situations.

Capitation Fee↗
PubMed2000

[Physician's anxiety and physician's elegance. Problems in dealing with cost reduction, education of general practitioners and optimal size of practice networks in a cross-national comparison].

The key reason for physicians networking in managed care is to get a better coping with uncertainty on action (treatment) decisions. The second reason for networking in managed care are financial benefits grounds. But this reason is very ambivalent. Three different action problems (role conflicts) in managed care network are to solved, which was also in single practices. In the lecture the decision strategies and decision resources has been compared. Observations are done using expert interviews, patient interviews and analysis of documents in USA, Germany and Switzerland. The first problem is the choosing of a cost reduction strategy which is not reducing the effectiveness. Such "ugly" solution strategies like exclusion of "expensive" patients and a rationing of necessary medical services in a kind of McDonalds network of physicians will fail the target. The optimost way is a saving of all unnecessary medical even injourious performances. The chosen cost reduction strategy is not real visible from outside but in fact limited cognizable and controllable. Evidence based health care can be a resource of treatment decisions and could train such decisions but it will not substitute these decisions. The second problem is the making of real family practitioners as gatekeepers. Knowledge about the care system is still not making a real family practitioner, even if this is the minimum condition of their work. Also contractual relationships between insurance and doctor as a gatekeeper or financial incentives for patients are still making not a real family practitioner as a gatekpeeper. Only throughout the trust of patients supported by second opinions is making the real family practitioner as a gatekeeper. "Doctor hopping" could be the reaction by scarcity of trustworthy family practitioners as gatekeepers. The third problem is the choosing of the optimal scale of a network due to the very different optimal size of networks regarding the requirement of risk spreeds, of the motivated engagement, of competition, incentives of inclusion of insurantes, they always need other net sizes. But it is possible, for each requirement there could function different networks. A practice (doctor's office) can be a member in different networks in several levels. The social transition from a small office to a network of offices is in all business lines a cultural shock involving not only benefits also psychical and social distress. In this there is no difference between health or agriculture or each other business of trade and industry. The destiny of the joint doctor's offices in Germany suggest due to a very serious power to scatter this networks. The comparative analysis of conflicts, strains, resources and strategies of associations and networks could yield from a developed methodical repository in sociology and social psychology what exists since 40 years (see also Meyer--in this journal). But therefore must be included also the action problems, which are only mentioned in passing of the according profession horizon.

Cost Control↗
PubMed2004

Insurance policies and perceived quality of primary care among privately insured patients: do features of managed care widen the racial, ethnic, and language-based gaps?

CONTEXT: Little is known about whether some features of managed care widen disparities in patients' evaluations of primary care. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether the magnitudes of racial and ethnic/language-based differences in patients' evaluations of the quality of primary care vary by capitation and gatekeeping. DESIGN: We used a telephone survey of a representative sample of the US noninstitutionalized population, Community Tracking Study Household Survey 1998-1999, and Followback Survey of respondents' insurance administrators. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Our sample was privately insured adults who saw a physician at least once during the year preceding the interview and whose last visit was to a primary care physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured patients' evaluations of (1) how well the physician listened, (2) how well the physician explained, and (3) how thorough and careful the physician was during the last visit. RESULTS: Significant white-minority differences emerge more often in plans using capitation or gatekeeping than in other plans. The gaps in patients' evaluations of their primary care providers' (PCP) explanations and thoroughness between whites and Hispanics interviewed in English are larger when the PCP is capitated than when the PCP is not capitated. The gap in the evaluations of their PCP's explanations by whites and Hispanics interviewed in English is larger in plans that require referrals for specialist visits than in other plans. The magnitude of racial and ethnic/language-based gaps for Hispanics interviewed in Spanish, blacks, and Native American/Asian/Pacific Islanders do not differ by capitation and gatekeeping. CONCLUSION: English-speaking Hispanics' perceptions of the quality of primary care may be more dissimilar from whites' when capitation or gatekeeping are used than when these policies are not used.

Adult↗