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 793 records · Page 44Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Neurosurgical credentials: a history and critique.

The author presents a review of the process of peer evaluation in this century, as well as how certification and techniques of evaluation in the practice of medicine and neurosurgery have evolved. The effect of licensure on the workforce, the influence of trade laws on quality of education and training, and the new paradigm of competition and managed medical practices have made a remarkable impact on the nature of the care of patients in the United States. The author also discusses the effect of risk management and litigation on the quality of medical care, the nature of outcomes evaluation and economic credentials in the absence of appropriate instruments for such evaluation, and alternatives for the future of the credentials process.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2001

The prevalence of formal risk adjustment in health plan purchasing.

This paper describes the prevalence of formal risk adjustment of payments made to health plans by Medicare, Medicaid, state governments, and private payers. In this paper, 'formal risk adjustment" is defined as the adjustment of premiums paid to health plans based on individual-level diagnostic or demographic information. We find that formal risk adjustment is used for about one-fifth of all enrollees in capitated health plans. While the Medicare and Medicaid programs rely on formal risk adjustment for virtually all their health plan enrollees, the practice is used for only about 1% of privately insured health plan enrollees. Ourfindings raise the question of why regulators have adopted formal risk adjustment, but private purchasers for the most part have not.

Diffusion of Innovation↗
PubMed2001

Private employers don't need formal risk adjustment.

This paper lays down a set of hypotheses to explain why private employers do not use formal risk adjustment. The theme running through these hypotheses is simple: private employers don't need formal adjustment because they have better tools for dealing with adverse selection than formal risk adjustment provides. Open enrollment provisions, premium negotiations, and restricting employees' choices of health plans are mechanisms superior to formal risk adjustment for dealing with problems caused by adverse selection.

Community Participation↗
PubMed2001

Designing employer health benefits for a heterogeneous workforce: risk adjustment and its alternatives.

Many health economists recommend that employers provide employees with a risk-adjusted choice among competing health insurance plans. However, formal risk adjustment is rarely if ever used by employers. This paper examines a range of health benefit design options available to employers, focusing attention not only on risk adjustment but also on its alternatives. We argue that while formal risk adjustment is rare, employers commonly use strategies that accomplish some of the same objectives at less cost.

Actuarial Analysis↗
PubMed2001

A demand-side view of risk adjustment.

This paper analyzes the efficient allocation of consumers to health plans. Specifically, we address the question of why employers that offer multiple health plans often make larger contributions to the premiums of the high-cost plans. Our perspective is that the subsidy for high-cost plans represents a form of demand-side risk adjustment that improves efficiency. Without such subsidies (and in the absence of formal risk adjustment), too few employees would choose the high-cost plans preferred by high-risk workers. We test the theory by estimating a model of the employer premium subsidy, using data from a survey of large public employers in 1994. Our empirical analysis shows that employers are more likely to subsidize high-cost plans when the benefits of risk adjustment are greater. The findings suggest that the premium subsidy can accomplish some of the benefits of formal risk adjustment.

Community Participation↗
PubMed2001

Health plans and selection: formal risk adjustment vs. market design and contracts.

In this paper, we explore the demand for risk adjustment by health plans that contract with private employers by considering the conditions under which plans might value risk adjustment. Three factors reduce the value of risk adjustment from the plans' point of view. First, only a relatively small segment of privately insured Americans face a choice of competing health plans. Second, health plans share much of their insurance risk with payers, providers, and reinsurers. Third, de facto experience rating that occurs during the premium negotiation process and management of coverage appear to substitute for risk adjustment. While the current environment has not generated much demand for risk adjustment, we reflect on its future potential.

Community Participation↗
PubMed2001

Formal risk adjustment by private employers.

This paper explores explanations for why few private employers have adopted formal risk adjustment. The lack of data, challenges of using highly imperfect signals, and absence of market power are not compelling explanations. Alternative strategies that reduce selection problems are clearly important. The central argument is that U.S. health markets are not in equilibrium, but rather are changing rapidly. Since many agents-consumers, employers, health plans, and providers--do not currently demand formal risk adjustment, it is not surprising that adoption has been slow. Recent changes in health plan markets may change the demand and accelerate future adoption.

Actuarial Analysis↗
PubMed1999

What do the accreditation organizations expect? American Association of Blood Banks.

In 1958, the American Association of Blood Banks introduced the first edition of Standards for Blood Banks and Transfusion Services. That same year, the association implemented the Inspection and Accreditation Program. This program served the association well for 40 years; however, factors such as the application of Current Good Manufacturing Practices by the Food and Drug Administration, the implementation of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 by the Health Care Financing Administration, managed care, competition, and increased cost pressures have changed the way the blood banking community conducts its business. In the early 1990s the board of directors recognized the need to reevaluate the Inspection and Accreditation Program and developed a strategic plan for implementation of a new accreditation program, with an emphasis on prevention rather than detection of errors. The first step in the process was the development of the Accreditation Program Committee. The committee was charged to develop and coordinate a program that would bring the accreditation process in tune with the current climate of blood banking and move it into the 21st century. The board charged the committee with the development of a program that recognizes the differences and similarities within the diverse groups of American Association of Blood Banks institutional members and to take into consideration how they do business and respond to regulations, standards, and other requirements.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1996

What is accountability in health care?

Accountability has become a major issue in health care. Accountability entails the procedures and processes by which one party justifies and takes responsibility for its activities. The concept of accountability contains three essential components: 1) the loci of accountability--health care consists of at least 11 different parties that can be held accountable or hold others accountable; 2) the domains of accountability--in health care, parties can be held accountable for as many as six activities: professional competence, legal and ethical conduct, financial performance, adequacy of access, public health promotion, and community benefit; and 3) the procedures of accountability, including formal and informal procedures for evaluating compliance with domains and for disseminating the evaluation and responses by the accountable parties. Different models of accountability stress different domains, evaluative criteria, loci, and procedures. We characterize and compare three dominant models of accountability: 1) the professional model, in which the individual physician and patient participate in shared decision making and physicians are held accountable to professional colleagues and to patients; 2) the economic model, in which the market is brought to bear in health care and accountability is mediated through consumer choice of providers; and 3) the political model, in which physicians and patients interact as citizen-members within a community and in which physicians are accountable to a governing board elected from the members of the community, such as the board of a managed care plan. We argue that no single model of accountability is appropriate to health care. Instead, we advocate a stratified model of accountability in which the professional model guides the physician-patient relationship, the political model operates within managed care plans and other integrated health delivery networks, and the economic and political models operate in the relations between managed care plans and other groups such as employers, government, and professional associations.

Delivery of Health Care, Integrated↗
PubMed1990

The challenges to physician autonomy and advocacy.

The rapid changes occurring in the organization, delivery and financing of health care has come at the expense of the medical profession. Control of the health care system now appears to have shifted from providers to purchasers and payers.

Economic Competition↗
PubMed1994

Layoffs rise as pace of cost-cutting accelerates.

According to the eighth annual hospital human resources survey, layoffs are on the rise. Results show nearly four out of every 10 hospitals are trimming their work forces to reduce operating costs and restructure themselves to better cope with competition and managed care.

Cost Control↗