Gold M, Nelson L, Lake T, Hurley R, Berenson R
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Washington, DC 20024, USA.
Med Care Res Rev. 1995 Sep;52(3):307-41. doi: 10.1177/107755879505200301.
Extraordinary growth in managed care arrangements over the past decade has been both widely praised and criticized. Proponents and critics agree that the nature of medical practice is being profoundly altered by this growth, even if they cannot articulate the direction and consequences of this change. We explore the roots of this uncertainty by examining the available evidence on critical features of the arrangements managed care plans currently have with affiliated physicians. Our approach is to review and synthesize the literature in several key substantive areas from a broad range of sources. We found that existing knowledge is dated, derived form a limited subset of plans, inattentive to important structural differences between plans, and responsive to a very narrow set of issues poorly reflecting the range of medical practice and change introduced by managed care. We highlight key questions of interest and the knowledge gaps critical to address so that policy and management decisions can both reflect and be informed on these issues that define the arrangements managed care plans make with physicians and ultimately influence medical practice.
在过去十年中,管理式医疗安排的迅猛发展既广受赞誉,也备受批评。支持者和批评者都认为,这种发展正在深刻改变医疗实践的性质,尽管他们无法阐明这种变化的方向和后果。我们通过审视有关管理式医疗计划目前与附属医生所做安排的关键特征的现有证据,来探究这种不确定性的根源。我们的方法是从广泛的来源中回顾和综合几个关键实质性领域的文献。我们发现,现有知识陈旧过时,来源于有限的一部分计划,没有关注计划之间重要的结构差异,并且只针对非常狭窄的一系列问题,难以反映管理式医疗所带来的医疗实践和变化的范围。我们强调了感兴趣的关键问题以及亟待解决的知识空白,以便政策和管理决策既能反映这些问题,又能基于这些问题做出决策,这些问题界定了管理式医疗计划与医生所做的安排,并最终影响医疗实践。