Zuckerman S, Holahan J
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1988 Winter;13(4):663-81. doi: 10.1215/03616878-13-4-663.
This paper compares the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) to four all-payer rate-setting systems that operated under HCFA waiver authority. The study examines the experience of Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers under the two approaches. Data from several American Hospital Association surveys and from Medicaid 2082 report forms are analyzed. The paper concludes that the all-payer waiver programs have been as successful as PPS in controlling the rate of growth in Medicare costs. In addition, Medicaid programs are more successful in controlling their outlays in all-payer rate-setting environments than when they "go alone." Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that hospitals can increase charges in response to greater financial need under either PPS or the state waivers. Nevertheless, it appears that commercial insurers are better able to compete with Blue Cross plans in all-payer rate-setting states than elsewhere.
本文将医疗保险预付费系统(PPS)与在医疗保健财务管理局(HCFA)豁免权下运作的四种全支付方费率设定系统进行了比较。该研究考察了两种方法下医疗保险、医疗补助和商业保险公司的情况。分析了来自美国医院协会的几次调查以及医疗补助2082报告表的数据。本文得出结论,全支付方豁免计划在控制医疗保险成本增长速度方面与预付费系统一样成功。此外,医疗补助计划在全支付方费率设定环境中控制支出方面比其“单独行动”时更成功。最后,没有证据表明医院能够在预付费系统或州豁免政策下,因财务需求增加而提高收费。然而,在全支付方费率设定的州,商业保险公司似乎比在其他地方更有能力与蓝十字计划竞争。