PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10144243

Subcapitation: sharing risks and rewards with community physicians.

Abstract

The continuing growth of managed care and payers' growing preference for working with integrated systems require medical groups of all sizes to examine their options. A Cincinnati multispecialty group developed a network--in partnership with community physicians--that may serve as a model for other evolving managed care markets. To provide geographic coverage and cost effectiveness, the group created a network of more than 350 primary care and specialty physicians to serve as the delivery system for three capitated payers. The system is based on subcapitation and aligned incentives. These enable the multispecialty group to deliver a wide array of specialty services cost effectively and allows subspecialty and primary care groups to benefit from this tie to a multispecialty provider. The groups approached to participate in the subcapitated network were selected carefully and chosen according to objective criteria. The system provides incentives for physicians to increase their efficiency and to work cooperatively to improve patient care processes. The subcapitated network physicians are represented on many of the system's quality improvement committees and have generally found the arrangement to be favorable.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P A Beckman, M Feliberty Trivedi. Subcapitation: sharing risks and rewards with community physicians.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10144243/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Caregivers' ratings of access: do children with special health care needs fare better under fee-for-service or partially capitated managed care?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate how enrollment in a partially capitated managed care (MC) option versus the fee-for-service (FFS) system affects caregivers' ratings of dimensions of access to services among children with special health care needs (SHCN). SUBJECTS: The data were collected from telephone interviews during the summer and fall of 2002 with a random sample of 1088 caregivers of children with SHCN who qualified for Supplemental Security Income and therefore were enrolled the Medicaid program for children with SHCN in the District of Columbia. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used a 2-step procedure in which we first estimated plan choice and then constructed a selectivity correction to control for the potential selection bias linked to plan choice. We estimated the second stage equations predicting caregiver's ratings of dimensions of access as a function of the selectivity correction, the plan choice dummy variable and other exogenous variables. RESULTS: After controlling for the potential selection bias linked to plan choice and other confounding factors, we find that caregivers of children in FFS are significantly more likely than caregivers of children enrolled in the partially capitated MC plan to rate the following dimensions of access as either fair or poor: "access to specialists' care" (P < 0.01), "access to emergency room care" (P < 0.01), "convenience of the doctor's office" (P < 0.01), and "waiting time between making the appointment actual visit" (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We attribute these differences in caregivers' ratings of dimensions of access that exist between partially capitated MC and FFS enrollees to case management and care coordination services along with higher fees paid for pediatrician's and specialists' services available under MC option.

Capitation Fee↗

Coordinated care in a 'consumer-driven' health system.

High-deductible health plans--with and without spending accounts--are gaining ground. Will these evolving benefit designs complement or undermine the coordination of care for patients with chronic illnesses? Based on an October 2005 roundtable sponsored by the California HealthCare Foundation and Health Affairs, this paper discusses the implications of a changing health insurance market for the chronically ill, capitation payment for medical groups, and consumers navigating the system.

Capitation Fee↗