PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10150708

Serious mental illness and capitation financing.

S K Reed
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Traditional organization and financing of mental health care has not adequately served the needs of persons with serious mental illness. Capitation financing is being tested in several localities, but little experimental data has been yielded to date, and it is mixed. The results from the Rochester experiment were positive but limited, and some other pilots also reported positive experiences with capitation. Others have ended prematurely or confronted obstacles. Experimental findings are also anticipated from the Philadelphia and California pilots, and others are just beginning. Existing financing mechanisms, cost-shifting efforts, and professional cultures represent powerful obstacles to successfully implementing capitation financing for care of persons with long-term mental illnesses, and potential incentives to underserve enrollees require adequate accountability structures. In spite of obstacles, the goodness of fit between the needs of persons with serious mental illness and capitation flexibility warrant further exploration of this financing modality.

Explore related subjects

Capitation FeeCost AllocationHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Services ResearchHumansLong-Term CareManaged Care ProgramsMental DisordersOrganizational CulturePilot ProjectsUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S K Reed. 1994. Serious mental illness and capitation financing.. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370120407

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

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↗
PubMed2006

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↗