The death of managed care: a regulatory autopsy

On the heels of widespread patient protection legislation in the states, the managed care industry abandoned or greatly scaled back the core elements of gate-keeping, utilization management, and financial incentives, which are the very targets of this legislation. This article explores whether, and to what extent, the industry's abrupt change in course can be attributed to these laws. Based on extensive interviews with key informants in six representative states, the article concludes that these laws were not the primary driver of changes in managed care practices. However, patient protection laws interacted with other social and market forces, through complex forms of feedback and reinforcement, to bring about more thoroughgoing change than would have otherwise occurred.     

The ethics of managed care: a dose of realism

This article examines the ethics of medical practice under managed care from a pragmatic perspective that gives physicians more useful guidance than existing ethical statements. The article begins by stating the authors' starting premises and framework for constructing a realistic set of ethical principles: namely, that bedside rationing in some form is permissible; that medical ethics derive from physicians' role as healers; that actual agreements usually trump hypothetical ones; that ethical statements are primarily aspirational, not regulatory; and that preserving patient trust is the primary objective. The authors then articulate the following concrete ethical guides: financial incentives should influence physicians to maximize the health of the group of patients under their care; physicians should not enter into incentive arrangements that they would be embarrassed to describe accurately to their patients or that are not in common use in the market; physicians should treat each patient impartially, without regard to source of payment, and in a manner consistent with the physician's own treatment style; if physicians depart from this ideal, they must tell their patients honestly; and it is desirable, although not mandatory, to differentiate medical treatment recommendations from insurance coverage decisions by clearly assigning authority over these different roles and by having physicians to advocate for recommended treatment that is not covered.     

The stages of managed care regulation: developing better rules

The managed care industry is at a crossroads. Belief in the ability of market forces alone to create an environment fostering quality health care at lower cost is eroding. Regulators across the country are confronted with a growing consumer backlash against managed care. As a result, states have passed managed care reform legislation at unprecedented rates. In doing so, states are confronted with a patchwork of federal intervention and preemption. We examine the stages of these recent state and federal developments and evaluate them in terms of the traditional objectives of a reasonably functioning health care system: quality care, access, and cost containment.     

State Medicaid managed care enrollment: understanding the political calculus that drives Medicaid managed care reforms

The objective of this article is to understand the political motivations underlying Medicaid managed care reforms by examining the determinants of enrollment of beneficiaries in managed care plans in the fifty states. To highlight the role of the model variables, including measures of the political environment, public interest, and special interests, a distinction is made between capitated and fee-for-service managed care enrollment. The results show that cost containment within the context of the Medicaid program is perceived as strongly favored by voters. Accordingly, the relative cost and tax price of providing Medicaid services are important factors in states' decision to enroll Medicaid beneficiaries in managed care plans, particularly capitated ones. The results also indicate a surprisingly significant influence by labor unions that generally oppose managed care enrollment for fears of lost jobs. The recipient population and provider groups also play an important role in shaping the Medicaid managed care landscape. The influence of variables measuring states' ability and willingness to pay and median voter preferences suggest that, within the context of Medicaid managed care enrollment, the public's interests are being served; however, the results also point toward inequities within the program and implications concerning financing arrangements between states and the federal government.     

The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act: greater liability on managed care plans

Mrs. Mayers' article notes the substantial differences that exist between the Senate and the House of Representatives' version of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001. While observing the remedies made available to participants, beneficiaries, or enrollees under both bills, she shows that the Senate bill places greater liability on managed care plans because it favors consumer protection, while the House of Representatives' bill does not. In order to develop an understanding of why an act of this nature is needed, Mrs. Mayers provides a brief historical overview of how managed care entities developed. She also examines the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and proposes amendments to them. She concludes her article by raising an even deeper concern, and that is: what happens to individuals without access to health care coverage.     

The evolution of an innovation: variations in medicaid managed care program extensiveness

This article utilizes a theoretical framework of policy innovation, diffusion, and reinvention to investigate the evolving nature of Medicaid managed care programs over time. By estimating two separate models, one for primary care case management (PCCM) and a second for risk-based program enrollment, this study seeks to disentangle two different paths of learning (internal and external), investigate the potential effects of vertical diffusion of policy, and examine the impact of internal state characteristics on the extent of Medicaid managed care. With respect to diffusion and learning, the data reveal that earlier adopters implement more extensive programs. The data fail to reveal much internal learning, although there is evidence of some. External impacts are clear: managed care enrollments in neighboring states and changes in the federal waiver process affect states' decisions. Other policy choices are important: states with more generous Medicaid eligibility rules implement more extensive managed care programs. Complementing other studies of Medicaid, we find that politics and economics make a difference for the extent of managed care programs; unlike other Medicaid studies, we find no effect of race and ethnicity.