Ethical Guidelines for Physician Compensation Based on Capitation
- 3 September 1998
- journal article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 339 (10), 689-693
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199809033391009
Abstract
There is a growing crisis of confidence in managed care. Because of its success in controlling costs to employers, managed care has triggered fears that necessary health services are being withheld and that decisions about health care are being driven by the financial bottom line. The growth of for-profit managed-care corporations has fanned the flames of this distrust.1 Managed-care organizations have been accused of withholding necessary services through several mechanisms, including restriction of access to specialists, denial of coverage for new forms of technology, and administrative review of physicians' decisions. But perhaps even more important, there are public fears about . . .Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Trends: Physician Earnings at Risk: An Examination of Capitated ContractsHealth Affairs, 1997
- Capitation or decapitation: keeping your head in changing timesPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1996
- Extreme Risk — The New Corporate Proposition for PhysiciansNew England Journal of Medicine, 1995
- Bridging the gap between expert and public views on health care reformJAMA, 1993
- Contractual Arrangements Between HMOs and Primary Care Physicians: Three-Tiered HMOs and Risk PoolsMedical Care, 1992
- HMO Managers' Views On Financial Incentives and QualityHealth Affairs, 1991
- Salaried Physicians and Economic IncentivesNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Altruism, self-interest, and medical ethicsJAMA, 1987
- The Doctor's MasterNew England Journal of Medicine, 1984