Shortell S M, Hull K E
Center for Health Services and Policy Research, Northwestern University, USA.
Baxter Health Policy Rev. 1996;2:101-48.
The U.S. health care system is restructuring at a dizzying pace. In many parts of the country, managed care has moved into third-generation models emphasizing capitated payment for enrolled lives and, in the process, turning most providers and institutions into cost centers to be managed rather than generators of revenue. While the full impact of the new managed care models remains to be seen, most evidence to date suggests that it tends to reduce inpatient use, may be associated with greater use of physician services and preventive care, and appears to result in no net differences either positive or negative with regard to quality or outcomes of care in comparison with fee-for-service plans. Some patients, however, tend to be somewhat less satisfied with scheduling of appointments and the amount of time spent with providers. There is no persuasive evidence that managed care lowers the rate of growth in overall health care costs within a given market. Further, managed care performance varies considerably across the country, and the factors influencing managed care performance are not well understood. Organized delivery systems are a somewhat more recent phenomenon representing various forms of ownership and strategic alliances among hospitals, physicians, and insurers designed to provide more cost-effective care to defined populations by achieving desired levels of functional, physician-system, and clinical integration. Early evidence suggests that organized delivery systems that are more integrated have the potential to provide more accessible coordinated care across the continuum, and appear to be associated with higher levels of inpatient productivity, greater total system revenue, greater total system cash flow, and greater total system operating margin than less integrated delivery forms. Some key success factors for developing organized delivery systems have been identified. Important roles are played by organizational culture, information systems, internal incentives, total quality management, physician leadership, and the growth of group practices. This chapter describes the growth and evolution of managed care and organized delivery systems, the research evidence regarding managed care and organized delivery systems, and the likely future organization of the health system in light of recent trends and evidence. It also highlights some of the more important public policy implications of the new health care infrastructure.
美国医疗保健系统正在以惊人的速度进行重组。在该国许多地区,管理式医疗已进入第三代模式,强调对参保人员实行按人头付费,在此过程中,大多数医疗服务提供者和机构变成了需要管理的成本中心,而非创收部门。虽然新型管理式医疗模式的全面影响仍有待观察,但迄今为止的大多数证据表明,它往往会减少住院治疗的使用,可能与更多地使用医生服务和预防保健有关,而且与按服务收费计划相比,在医疗质量或结果方面似乎没有净的正负差异。然而,一些患者对预约安排以及与医疗服务提供者相处的时间多少往往不太满意。没有确凿证据表明管理式医疗能降低特定市场内总体医疗保健成本的增长率。此外,管理式医疗的表现因地区差异很大,影响管理式医疗表现的因素也尚未得到充分理解。有组织的医疗服务提供系统是一种相对较新的现象,它代表了医院、医生和保险公司之间各种形式的所有权和战略联盟,旨在通过实现功能、医生系统和临床整合的期望水平,为特定人群提供更具成本效益的医疗服务。早期证据表明,整合程度更高的有组织医疗服务提供系统有可能在整个连续过程中提供更易获得的协调医疗服务,而且与整合程度较低的医疗服务形式相比,似乎与更高水平的住院生产效率、更高的系统总收入、更多的系统总现金流以及更高的系统总运营利润率相关。已经确定了发展有组织医疗服务提供系统的一些关键成功因素。组织文化、信息系统、内部激励措施、全面质量管理、医生领导力以及团体医疗业务的发展都发挥着重要作用。本章描述了管理式医疗和有组织医疗服务提供系统的发展与演变、关于管理式医疗和有组织医疗服务提供系统的研究证据,以及鉴于近期趋势和证据,医疗系统未来可能的组织形式。它还强调了新医疗保健基础设施一些更重要的公共政策影响。