Abstract
Insurers make decisions that directly limit access to care (e.g., when deciding about coverage for new technologies or formulary design) and that indirectly limit access (e.g., by adopting incentives to induce physicians to provide fewer or different services). These decisions raise questions about legitimacy and fairness. By holding health plans accountable for the reasonableness of their decisions, it is possible to address these questions. Accountability for reasonableness involves providing publicly accessible rationales for decisions and limiting rationales to those that all “fair-minded” persons can agree are relevant to meeting patient needs fairly under resource constraints. This form of accountability is illustrated by examining its implications for the three examples of direct and indirect limit setting noted here.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (860.7 KB).
References
- 1.Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard. Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard national survey of Americans' views on consumer protection in managed care. 1998. Available at: http://www.kff.org/kff/library.html [PubMed]
- 2.Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability and the reform of managed care organizations. Health Aff. 1998;17(5):50–69. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Daniels N. Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Daniels N, Light D, Caplan R. Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Daniels N. Seeking Fair Treatment: From the AIDS Epidemic to National Health Care Reform. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Daniels N, Sabin J. Closure, fair procedures, and setting limits within managed care organizations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(3):351–354. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb01052.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am Econ Rev. 1963;53:941–973. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Daniels N, Sabin J. Last-chance therapies and managed care: pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998;28(2):27–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Daniels N. Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine. Hastings Cent Rep. 1996;26(6):10–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Newhouse JP. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? J Econ Perspect. 1992;6(3):3–21. doi: 10.1257/jep.6.3.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sabin J, Daniels N. Making insurance coverage for new technologies reasonable and accountable. JAMA. 1998;279(9):703–704. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.9.703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gold MR, Hurley R, Lake T, Ensor T, Berenson R. A national survey of the arrangements managed-care plans make with physicians. New Engl J Med. 1995;333(25):1678–1683. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199512213332505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hellinger FJ. The impact of financial incentives on physician behavior in managed care plans: a review of the evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 1996;53(3):294–314. doi: 10.1177/107755879605300305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Orentlicher D. Paying physicians more to do less: financial incentives to limit care. Univ Richmond Law Rev. 1996;30(1):155–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Berwick DM. Payment by capitation and the quality of care. New Engl J Med. 1996;335(16):1227–1231. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199610173351611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pearson SD, Sabin JE, Emanuel EJ. Ethical principles to guide physician compensation systems based on capitation. New Engl J Med. 1998;339(10):689–693. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199809033391009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Daniels N. Why saying no to patients in the United States is so hard: cost containment, justice, and provider autonomy. New Engl J Med. 1986;314:1381–1383. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198605223142109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]