Literature DB >> 8188132

Patients at risk: health reform and risk adjustment.

J P Newhouse1.   

Abstract

The Clinton proposal recognizes the need for successful risk adjustment and calls for the National Health Board to promulgate a risk adjustment formula by 1 April 1995. Unfortunately, risk adjustment technology is primitive; using observable characteristics such as age only slightly ameliorates the flawed incentives of not adjusting at all. Without major improvements in risk adjustment technology we face a trade-off between giving plans an incentive to select good risks and an incentive to produce at lowest cost. Pure capitation maximizes both incentives; pure fee-for-service minimizes both. I suggest experimentation with paying plans partly on the basis of risk-adjusted capitation and partly on the basis of a fee schedule reflecting actual use (partial capitation). In the draft Clinton plan, the option given to alliances not to offer plans priced above 120 percent of the weighted average premium appears to assume better risk adjustment ability than is now possible. This option should be relaxed or abandoned.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8188132     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.13.1.132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  19 in total

1.  Ignoring small predictable profits and losses: a new approach for measuring incentives for cream skimming.

Authors:  E M van Barneveld; L M Lamers; R C van Vliet; W P van de Ven
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2000-02

2.  The United States health care system under managed care. How the commodification of health care distorts ethics and threatens equity.

Authors:  L R Churchill
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1999

3.  Risk adjustment alternatives in paying for behavioral health care under Medicaid.

Authors:  S L Ettner; R G Frank; T G McGuire; R C Hermann
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  Use of risk adjustment in setting budgets and measuring performance in primary care II: advantages, disadvantages, and practicalities.

Authors:  A Majeed; A B Bindman; J P Weiner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-09-15

5.  Do adjusted clinical groups eliminate incentives for HMOs to avoid substance abusers? Evidence from the Maryland Medicaid HealthChoice program.

Authors:  Susan L Ettner; Steven Johnson
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.505

6.  Use of the reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes.

Authors:  Robert J Ferguson; Amy B Robinson; Mark Splaine
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Chronic disease, functional health status, and demographics: a multi-dimensional approach to risk adjustment.

Authors:  M C Hornbrook; M J Goodman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Risk equalization, competition, and choice: a preliminary assessment of the 1993 German health reforms.

Authors:  J A Wysong; T Abel
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1996

9.  Using a Self-Reported Global Health Measure to Identify Patients at High Risk for Future Healthcare Utilization.

Authors:  Karen J Blumenthal; Yuchiao Chang; Timothy G Ferris; Jenna C Spirt; Christine Vogeli; Neil Wagle; Joshua P Metlay
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Diagnosing Expertise: Human Capital, Decision Making, and Performance among Physicians.

Authors:  Janet Currie; W Bentley MacLeod
Journal:  J Labor Econ       Date:  2017
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.