Patient rights meet managed care: understanding the underlying conflicts

During the past several years, one of the favored areas for legislative (and editorial) debate in our Nation has been the proper level of legal protections that should be accorded to those individuals who have chosen to become members of managed care plans. As examined in the following article, this debate often rages with little notice being paid to the underlying conflicts between managed care and "patient's rights." Indeed, at times, the vociferousness of the debate obscures even those instances in which there is little fundamental conflict.     

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.     

Waiting for Godot: wishes and worries in managed care

Managed care has done a better job at reducing expenditure growth than it has in improving quality. Although reduced expenditure growth is not appreciated by many, it has real benefits. For the majority of Americans who are privately insured, it results in greater disposable income for goods and services other than health care (although the illusion of employer-paid health insurance obscures this reality for many). For Medicaid programs, slower growth of expenditures facilitates efforts at expanding coverage. For low-income workers, slower expenditure growth results in larger numbers of people retaining insurance coverage than would have been the case if premiums rose more quickly. While there are some victories to which managed care organizations can point, we cannot credibly argue that overall levels of quality and health outcomes are improving as the health care system is massively disrupted by changes in health care finance and delivery. The disruptions create real hardships for some physicians and other health care workers, and worries for many consumers. These worries fuel the managed care backlash. The danger is that politicians will respond to these worries with policies that inhibit the development of high-quality delivery systems. The opportunity is for relatively modest public policy changes--external review organizations, better public-sector purchasing capabilities, public investment in producing and publicizing information on health plan and medical group performance, and establishment of a public ombudsperson--to respond to consumer worries and lead to improvements in health care quality and outcomes. Finally, I would be remiss without a reminder that the single most effective action politicians could take to improve health care quality and outcomes would be to change the rules of health care financing to assure that all Americans are covered by managed care. Even with all of its inadequacies, managed care is much superior to the patchwork care available to the 43 million Americans who are uninsured. The managed care backlash is concerned with protecting patients who are insured (and their providers). Far more valuable would be to protect those without insurance. Sadly, no politician has yet figured out how to do this. Still waiting.     

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.     

Price competition in hospital markets: the significance of managed care

Anticompetitive conduct in the healthcare industry is often hard to detect, and has been ignored by some courts that appear to lack an understanding of managed care and its significance in maintaining price competition. These courts have adopted an approach that is far too historical and mechanistic, and is characterized by outdated factors analyzed in isolation from each other. In order to preserve effective price competition, the courts should embrace a realistic analysis that accurately reflects the workings of health services markets. This article describes the many facets of market power and anticompetitive conduct, and how they affect healthcare prices. The author then tums to an analysis of two recent hospital antitrust decisions, and critiques them for their failure to properly analyze the dynamics of local hospital markets.