Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness

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.

[1]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Ethical guidelines for physician compensation based on capitation. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  R. Berenson,et al.  A national survey of the arrangements managed-care plans make with physicians. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  N. Daniels,et al.  The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. , 1998, Health affairs.

[4]  D. Berwick Quality of health care. Part 5: Payment by capitation and the quality of care. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  D. Orentlicher Paying Physicians More to Do Less: Financial Incentives to Limit Care , 1996, University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond.

[6]  N. Daniels Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine. , 1996, The Hastings Center report.

[7]  L. Aday Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform , 1997 .

[8]  N. Daniels Seeking Fair Treatment: From the AIDS Epidemic to National Health Care Reform , 1995 .

[9]  N. Daniels,et al.  Making insurance coverage for new technologies reasonable and accountable. , 1998, JAMA.

[10]  F. Hellinger The Impact of Financial Incentives on Physician Behavior in Managed Care Plans: A Review of the Evidence , 1996, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[11]  N. Daniels,et al.  Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. , 1997, Philosophy & public affairs.

[12]  N. Daniels,et al.  Last chance therapies and managed care. Pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy. , 1998, The Hastings Center report.

[13]  N. Daniels Why saying no to patients in the United States is so hard. Cost containment, justice, and provider autonomy. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Anne Donchin,et al.  Just Health Care. , 1989 .

[15]  K. Arrow Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. 1963. , 2004, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[16]  N. Daniels,et al.  Closure, Fair Procedures, and Setting Limits Within Managed Care Organizations , 1998, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[17]  J. Newhouse,et al.  Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? , 1992, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.