Is there convergence between Britain and the United States in the organisation of health services?. Interview by Penny Newman.
(18/31)
Is the organisation of health care in Britain becoming similar to that in the United States? Since the introduction of the internal market radical change has gripped the NHS. In the United States, despite the failure to implement coherent health care reform, a health care revolution is under way, driven by cost containment. At the centre of these changes is managed competition. Alain Enthoven, Marriner S Eccles professor of public and private management at Stanford University, has been the principal proponent of managed competition in both countries. His writings inspired the NHS reforms in 1989 and President Clinton's advisers to adopt managed competition in 1994, though ultimately he became opposed to the Clinton plan. In this interview with Penny Newman he redefines managed competition, explores the similarities and differences that have arisen between Britain and the United States, and describes recent trends in the United States, many of which are being mirrored in Britain. He illustrates a degree of convergence between the two countries. This was unthinkable 10 years ago when comparing the fee for service system in the United States with the NHS. (+info)
Saying goodbye to Canada's single-payer system.
(19/31)
Cost shifting, in which governments transfer the cost of certain health care services to patients or private insurance companies, is increasing rapidly, and Dr. Christopher Carruthers thinks it will spell an end to Canada's single-payer system. The signs are already there: the private sector is offering more services and employers are keeping a closer eye on the health care system as they begin to pay a bigger share of the costs. The result, says Carruthers, is that government influence is bound to diminish as the private sector tries to fill voids created by governments that are trying to live within their fiscal means. (+info)
Key issues in managed competition.
(20/31)
All managed competition proposals for health system reform must confront several key issues. The premiums paid to health care purchasing cooperatives will need to be subsidized for those who cannot pay full fare; the amount and sources of the subsidies are controversial political issues. The payments passed on by purchasing cooperatives to health plans must be risk adjusted to account for differences in the health care needs of their enrolled populations. This is essential to create a level playing field for competition and to eliminate incentives for plans to use risk assessment for attracting enrollees. The data and methods needed for risk adjustment, however, are not adequate at present. The Clinton Administration's plan to limit expenditure increases raises a host of thorny issues. Maintaining quality of care will require health plan quality report cards to be supplemented by external quality assurance systems. Assuring quality will be particularly problematic for traditional indemnity plans. The structure and governance of the system, administration simplification, and other issues need to be addressed. The size and voluntariness of the purchasing cooperatives greatly influence all of these considerations. Physicians should inform their political representatives on how these issues should be resolved as compromise bills are drafted by the United States Congress this year. (+info)
Antitrust, competition, and health care reform.
(21/31)
The goals of health care reform and the antitrust laws are similar: promotion of consumer welfare. Under reform, having large groups of consumers and providers will offer substantial efficiencies in purchasing and providing health care services but also will pose some antitrust risks. Health alliances may have excessive market power. Health plans and provider networks may have the potential to foreclose competition from actual or potential rivals. Mergers and joint ventures between providers will proliferate but may raise similar problems. Explicit exemptions from the antitrust laws-through federal or state legislation-may significantly limit the benefits of competition for consumers. A reformed health care system will not reduce the need for antitrust enforcement. (+info)
Why managed care has failed to contain health costs.
(22/31)
Much evidence points to the fact that managed care plans (health maintenance organizations and preferred provider insurance) reduce costs and offer value for money. Yet they apparently have not helped to slow national health expenditures. One explanation is that the practices of purchasers (including government and employers), the tax laws, and other market imperfections have reduced the demand for real cost containment, depriving managed care plans of an adequate incentive to cut cost and price. These market conditions can and should be corrected; the managed competition proposal being discussed at the national level is a comprehensive plan for doing so. (+info)
Markets, budgets, and health care cost control.
(23/31)
Health care cost control is often debated in terms of markets versus bureaucracies. Market restraints are limited in practice by the goal of providing access to care. Therefore, effective cost control requires budgeting. Experience from budgeting for other services should put health care cost control in perspective: The goal should not be rational and efficient allocations, merely better ones. The important choice is not between markets and bureaucracy, but rather which decisions should be made by physicians and which by budgeters, and how to ensure that professional judgment is applied where most important. (+info)
The marketplace in health care reform. The demographic limitations of managed competition.
(24/31)
BACKGROUND: The theory of managed competition holds that the quality and economy of health care delivery will improve if independent provider groups compete for consumers. In sparsely populated areas where relatively few providers are required, however, it is not feasible to divide the provider community into competing groups. We examined the demographic features of health markets in the United States to see what proportion of the population lives in areas that might successfully support managed competition. METHODS: The ratios of physicians to enrollees in large staff-model health maintenance organizations were determined as an indicator of the staffing needs of an efficient health plan. These ratios were used to estimate the populations necessary to support health organizations with various ranges of specialty services. Metropolitan areas with populations large enough to support managed competition were identified. RESULTS: We estimated that a health care services market with a population of 1.2 million could support three fully independent plans. A population of 360,000 could support three plans that independently provided most acute care hospital services, but the plans would need to share hospital facilities and contract for tertiary services. A population of 180,000 could support three plans that provided primary care and many basic specialty services but that shared inpatient cardiology and urology services. Health markets with populations greater than 180,000 would include 71 percent of the U.S. population; those with populations greater than 360,000, 63 percent; and those with populations greater than 1.2 million, 42 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Reform of the U.S. health care system through expansion of managed competition is feasible in medium-sized or large metropolitan areas. Smaller metropolitan areas and rural areas would require alternative forms of organization and regulation of health care providers in order to improve quality and economy. (+info)