SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Payers”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,063 records · Page 59Linked to original sources

PubMed2006

Post-exposure influenza prophylaxis with oseltamivir: cost effectiveness and cost utility in families in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of preventing post-exposure influenza infection using the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir from a healthcare payer's perspective in the UK. METHODS: A simulation model was developed, based on clinical trial results and published data, to predict morbidity and mortality due to influenza and to compare oseltamivir post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with no prophylaxis within families with members aged >or=13 years. Two scenarios were tested:1. Comparison of patients receiving PEP versus patients not receiving PEP and not being treated with oseltamivir should they become infected. 2. Comparison of patients receiving PEP versus patients not receiving PEP but being treated with oseltamivir should they become infected. The model was run with an attack rate in household contacts of 8% for the base case, with higher rates (up to 30%, representing pandemic conditions) tested in sensitivity analyses. A societal perspective and other key parameters were tested in sensitivity analysis. The year of costing was 2002. The time span for the model was up to 1 year (including one influenza season), but loss of life was included in the QALY calculation and based on expected life expectancy. RESULTS: PEP with oseltamivir results in reduced morbidity (i.e. fewer influenza cases) and associated reductions in complications, hospitalisations and mortality due to influenza. When comparing oseltamivir PEP with no prophylaxis for contact attack rates of 8%, 12% and 30%, the mean costs per QALY gained for scenario one were estimated at 29,938 pounds, 18,697 pounds and 5403 pounds, respectively; the mean costs per case avoided were 467 pounds, 293 pounds and 84 pounds, respectively. The corresponding results for scenario two were 52,202 pounds, 31,610 pounds and 9688 pounds per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: PEP with oseltamivir is likely to be a cost-effective strategy for family contacts in the UK from a healthcare payer perspective when influenza-like illness contact attack rates are 8% or higher and the only treatment given is 'usual care'.

Acetamides↗

PubMed2006

Clopidogrel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.

Clopidogrel (Plavix) is a selective inhibitor of adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation. In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) [unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], clopidogrel plus aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for up to 1 year significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events relative to placebo plus aspirin in the well designed clinical trial CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events) and its substudy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [PCI-CURE]. In pharmacoeconomic evaluations based on data from these trials conducted in a number of countries that used a variety of models, methods and/or type of costs, clopidogrel plus aspirin was consistently predicted to be cost effective relative to aspirin alone in the management of patients with ACS, including those undergoing PCI. Clopidogrel plus aspirin in patients with ACS reduced the incremental cost per cardiovascular event prevented and/or life-year gained (LYG) relative to aspirin alone in analyses using within-trial data (including longer-term analyses incorporating life-expectancy estimates) from the CURE or PCI-CURE studies. In Markov models of cost effectiveness with a lifetime horizon from a healthcare payer perspective based on the CURE trial, relative to aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year was predicted to have incremental costs per LYG of 8132Euro in Spain (2003 values) and 1365Euro in Sweden (2000 values). In similar Swedish analyses from a healthcare payer perspective, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year was predicted to have incremental costs per LYG of 10,993Euro (2004 values) relative to aspirin alone based on data from the PCI-CURE substudy. Broadly similar results have also been reported in modelled analyses from other countries. Cost-utility analyses based on the CURE trial suggest that, relative to lifelong aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year followed by aspirin alone is associated with incremental costs per QALY gained that are below the traditional threshold of cost utility in Spain, the UK and the US. In patients with ACS, including those undergoing PCI, the addition of clopidogrel to standard therapy with aspirin is clinically effective in preventing cardiovascular events. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin for up to 1 year as a cost-effective treatment relative to aspirin alone in this patient population.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2006

Health-economic comparison of paricalcitol, calcitriol and alfacalcidol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism during haemodialysis.

This study evaluated the health-economic consequences of use of intravenous paricalcitol (Zemplar), oral calcitriol or oral and intravenous alfacalcidol for the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism, focusing on a third-party payer perspective through inclusion of medication and hospital costs, survival rates and utilities. Cost values were based on German treatment recommendations and prices. Reference values for survival rates and utilities were based on the results of a MEDLINE search. The analysis showed a clear advantage for intravenous paricalcitol with respect to costs, effectiveness and utilities compared with treatment with oral calcitriol or intravenous alfacalcidol. Since the results were very cost sensitive with respect to selected diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for kidney disease with dialysis, a sensitivity analysis was performed. This demonstrated first-order dominance of intravenous paricalcitol for a wide range of hospitalisation costs. In conclusion, this analysis suggested a clear benefit from the perspective of a third-party payer for intravenous paricalcitol compared with oral calcitriol and intravenous alfacalcidol in the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Calcitriol↗

PubMed2005

The Personalized Medicine Coalition: goals and strategies.

The concept of personalized medicine--that medical care can be tailored to the genomic and molecular profile of the individual--has repercussions that extend far beyond the technology that makes it possible. The adoption of personalized medicine will require changes in healthcare infrastructure, diagnostics and therapeutics business models, reimbursement policy from government and private payers, and a different approach to regulatory oversight. Personalized medicine will shift medical practices upstream from the reactive treatment of disease, to proactive healthcare management including screening, early treatment, and prevention, and will alter the roles of both physician and patient. It will create a greater reliance on electronic medical records and decision support systems in an industry that has a long history of resistance to information technology. Personalized medicine requires a systems approach to implementation. But in a healthcare economy that is highly decentralized and market driven, it is incumbent upon the stakeholders themselves to advocate for a consistent set of policies and legislation that pave the way for the adoption of personalized medicine. To address this need, the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) was formed as a nonprofit umbrella organization of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and information technology companies, healthcare providers and payers, patient advocacy groups, industry policy organizations, major academic institutions, and government agencies. The PMC provides a structure for achieving consensus positions among these stakeholders on crucial public policy issues, a role which will be vital to translating personalized medicine into widespread clinical practice. In this article, we outline the goals of the PMC, and the strategies it will take to foster communication, debate, and consensus on issues such as genetic discrimination, the reimbursement structures for pharmacogenomic drugs and diagnostics, regulation, physician training and medical school curricula, and public education.

Communication↗

PubMed2006

Comparing patient access to pharmaceuticals in the UK and US.

BACKGROUND: The debate on access to new drugs has focused on the time lag between applications for approval and granting of marketing authorisation. This delay was identified as the first barrier with respect to patient access to new drugs, encompassing the hurdles of safety, efficacy and quality. Additional barriers have since been identified. These pertain to reimbursement and pricing of approved drugs, the so-called fourth and fifth hurdles. METHODS: We reviewed 38 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance appraisals carried out between April 1999 and April 2005. These appraisals included 71 recently approved drugs considered to have either high clinical or cost impact. For each drug we first determined its marketing approval date by the British Medicines Healthcare Products Agency (MHRA) or European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA). Secondly, we determined if each drug was approved by the US FDA for marketing and, if so, the date when it was approved. Thirdly, we considered whether and when each drug was recommended for reimbursement and use by NICE, and whether conditions of reimbursement applied. Fourthly, for the subset of FDA-approved drugs, we examined formulary placement, cost sharing and conditions of reimbursement on three-tier formularies used by seven leading US third-party payers serving Medicare beneficiaries. Fifthly, we reviewed each NICE recommendation to determine if cost-effectiveness data were referred to either in the appraisal documentation or in the final recommendation. Sixthly, we asked a spokesperson from each US payer whether cost-effectiveness assessments or rebates played a role in determining formulary placement of drugs in our sample, and whether there was a lag between marketing approval and reimbursement for any of the covered drugs. RESULTS: Of the 71 drugs contained in 38 NICE guidance appraisals, the US FDA approved 64. On average, the subset of 64 drugs received marketing authorisation in the US prior to the UK. On average, US plans covered 87% of the 64 drugs, the same percentage of drugs recommended for NHS reimbursement and use. Cost sharing in the US was significantly higher than in the UK, with wider variation across plans. On average, drugs covered in the US had fewer conditions of reimbursement (15%) than the percentage of drugs given conditions by NICE (46%). US plans were quicker to decide to reimburse drugs following marketing approval than NICE. CONCLUSIONS: The US provides faster, more flexible access to most, but not all, of the UK-approved pharmaceuticals in our sample. However, US patients have higher cost sharing than the UK and coverage is less evenly spread across the population. From a policy perspective, our study findings confirm the need to bolster the NICE fast-track initiative to decrease the amount of time it takes to appraise certain new pharmaceuticals. Also, the study findings point to the need in the US for careful monitoring of plan compliance with regulations pertaining to the Medicare drug benefit, particularly with respect to formulary restrictions and limits on cost sharing.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1991

The West German health care system: a critique.

Several leading health policy staff of the AFL-CIO and major unions met with the Board of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) in May 1990. They described the active discussions currently ongoing within the AFL-CIO Health Care Committee, which is composed of 14 international union presidents and sets AFL-CIO policy on health care issues. Some union presidents reportedly favored a single-payer, Canadian-style approach, while others apparently preferred a proposal modeled after the West German system, which preserves a major role for insurance companies. The PNHP Board was emphatic in its preference for the single-payer approach. Board member Dr. Vicente Navarro wrote the following letter to the union presidents on the AFL-CIO Health Care Committee detailing his critique of the West German approach.

Canada↗

PubMed2003

Costs of screening for pre-diabetes among US adults: a comparison of different screening strategies.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated various strategies to identify individuals aged 45-74 years with pre-diabetes (either impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cost analysis to evaluate the effectiveness (proportion of cases identified), total costs, and efficiency (cost per case identified) of five detection strategies: an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test, an HbA(1c) test, a capillary blood glucose (CBG) test, and a risk assessment questionnaire. For the first strategy, all individuals received an OGTT. For the last four strategies, only those with a positive screening test received an OGTT. Data were from the Third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2000 census, Medicare, and published literature. One-time screening costs were estimated from both a single-payer perspective and a societal perspective. RESULTS: The proportion of pre-diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes identified ranged from 69% to 100% (12.1-17.5 million). The cost per case identified ranged from US dollars 176 to US dollars 236 from a single-payer perspective and from US dollars 247 to US dollars 332 from a societal perspective. Testing all with OGTT was the most effective strategy, but the CBG test and risk assessment questionnaire were the most efficient. If people are substantially less willing to take an OGTT than a FPG test, then the FPG testing strategy was the most effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: There is a tradeoff between effectiveness and efficiency in choosing a strategy. The most favorable strategy depends on if the goal of the screening program is to identify more cases or to pursue the lowest cost per case. The expected percentage of the population willing to take an OGTT is also a consideration.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Reimbursement issues in diabetes.

Third-party reimbursement for outpatient education services and for new health care technologies in diabetes is an issue of concern to educators, administrators, and others in the diabetes health care system. Reimbursement for outpatient education has been obtained from 11 Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans in nine states, six commercial insurance companies in four states, Medicare in five states, and Medicaid in one state. Despite these successes, third-party payers still must be approached on an individual basis. We review approaches taken by different states and diabetes control programs and make recommendations on how to request third-party reimbursement for outpatient education services. Third-party reimbursement of diabetes-related technologies/services and equipment is found to be dependent on the type of coverage the individual has, the state in which he or she is located, and the item or procedure covered. Many third-party payers do not have stated policies on reimbursement of a particular piece of equipment such as the insulin pump, or they do not have consistent, well-communicated standards for determining coverage.

Ambulatory Care↗

PubMed1999

Comparison of the hospital cost of primary and revision total hip arthroplasty after cost containment.

This study compared the hospital cost of primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) after the introduction of cost-containment programs (clinical pathway, hip implant standardization, and competitive bid purchasing of hip implants). Hospital financial records for 290 primary and 85 revision THAs performed from October 1993 through September 1995 were analyzed. A cost-accounting system provided actual hospital cost data for each procedure. Accurate calculation of hospital income or loss was determined. Average hospital length of stay was 4.9 days for primary THA and 5.9 days for revision THA. Average hospital cost was $11,104 for primary THA and $14,935 for revision THA. Average net income (hospital revenue hospital expense) for primary THA was $2486. Average loss from revision THA was $401. The payer mix included commercial insurance, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, managed care, Medicare, Medicaid, and workmen's compensation. For primary THA, all payers were profitable except Medicaid and selected managed care contracts. For revision THA, profit was achieved with payment from commercial insurance only. Despite the introduction of cost-containment programs, revision THA did not achieve profitability at our institution.

Aged↗

PubMed1999

Comparison of the hospital cost of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty after cost containment.

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) consumes more time, more work, and more supplies than primary TKA. This study compared the hospital cost of primary and revision TKA after the introduction of cost-containment programs (implant standardization, clinical pathway, and competitive bid implant purchasing) at our hospital. Hospital financial records of 207 primary unilateral TKA operations and 32 revision TKA operations performed from October 1993 through September 1995 were analyzed. A cost-accounting system provided actual hospital cost data for each procedure. Accurate calculation of hospital income or loss was determined for all 239 procedures. The average hospital length of stay was 4.7 days for primary unilateral TKA and 5.1 days for revision TKA. There were 26 three-component revision operations and 6 one- or two-component revision operations. The average hospital cost was $10,421 for primary TKA and $11,906 for revision TKA. The average net hospital income (hospital revenue - hospital expense) was $3211 for primary TKA and $1853 for revision TKA. The payer mix included indemnity insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, and workmen's compensation. All payers were profitable except for Medicaid and selected managed care contracts for both primary and revision TKA. As a result of cost-containment programs, revision TKA can be profitable at our institution.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Stages of managed-care evolution.

In the United States, health care is undergoing a transformation. The stages of evolution to a managed-care setting could be characterized as follows: (1) "The Push," (2) "The Squeeze," (3) "The Purge," and (4) "The Promise." Although the pace of change differs in various locations, these same stages will be experienced throughout the country. In the first stage, the move is toward per diems for hospitals, and payers are still focused on volume. In stage 2, integrated systems are beginning to develop, and payers are purchasing volume by negotiating deals. Primary physicians begin to flex their muscles, and specialists begin to panic. In stage 3, price clout rules, and results of quality measures will be reported. In the final stage, fewer health-care providers will be available, but they will be coordinated in large groups, and capitation contracts will prevail. Capitation--a fixed payment per health plan enrollee being paid to a provider for a defined set of services for a prescribed period--will replace a fee-for-service arrangement. In this managed-care setting, the management of diabetes, which afflicts 14 million Americans, is a major issue. It accounts for 14.7% of every health-care dollar spent in the United States, and much of that investment is for treatment of unnecessary complications. Positioning of the clinical endocrinologist as the primary-care physician for patients with diabetes is proposed as the optimal strategy for appropriate management of the patient and attainment of cost control.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1994

The oversight of medical care: a proposal for reform. American College of Physicians.

The oversight of medical care, in the form of peer review, has traditionally been used to ensure that the highest standards of care are maintained. What is relatively new is the external oversight of medical practice carried out by a growing number of independent entities (government, third-party payers, for-profit firms, for example), overseeing care in uncoordinated ways. Tensions arise when reviews of utilization and reviews of quality are conducted by different organizations with conflicting goals. The review instruments are still crude and have neither been adequately tested nor validated. Future attention to developing reliable and valid measures of efficiency and quality is essential. Evidence suggests that the principal process of review, the case-by-case review, may not be cost-effective and may not be conducive to improving quality. It should be replaced by profiles of practice patterns at institutional, regional, or national levels. We propose a model of oversight that emphasizes the appropriate balance between internal mechanisms of quality improvement and external accountability. In this model, internal and external reviews have specific, complementary roles that promote efficiency and quality. Detailed monitoring of quality and problem solving are left to providers who are intimately involved with care. In return, they become accountable to payers and the public through the surveillance of patterns of practice.

Health Care Reform↗

PubMed1997

The role of medical necessity and cost-effectiveness in making medical decisions.

The term "medical necessity" is used ubiquitously in health care, but its meaning and implementation vary substantially among providers, payers, and patients. This ambiguity has led some to suggest that cost-effectiveness be used as a basis for decision rules. This paper presents an analytical framework that is familiar to clinicians and shows that medical necessity and cost-effectiveness do not provide deterministic rules for clinical decision making. First, 2 x 2 tables are used to show the tradeoff between the sensitivity and specificity of decision rules. Then, the example of asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm is used to show that these tradeoffs can be seen as a continuum of decision rules on a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Society can therefore choose a decision threshold on the basis of medical necessity that optimizes the number of lives saved or any other desired outcome, but the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity cannot be avoided. Applying cost-effectiveness criteria may change the decision threshold because cost-effectiveness itself involves inherent tradeoffs that create additional ambiguity for clinical decisions. The conclusion is that decision rules based on medical necessity or cost-effectiveness should not be considered deterministic. Rather, decision rules are useful when they make assumptions explicit and specify tradeoffs so that clinicians, patients, and payers can make better decisions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2000

The cost-effectiveness of sildenafil.

BACKGROUND: Coverage of sildenafil by health insurance plans is a contentious issue. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sildenafil treatment for erectile dysfunction. DESIGN: A Markov decision model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of sildenafil compared with no drug therapy. DATA SOURCES: Values for the efficacy and safety of sildenafil and quality-of-life utilities were obtained from the published medical literature. Base-case values were chosen to bias against sildenafil use. TARGET POPULATION: Men 60 years of age with erectile dysfunction. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal and third-party payer. INTERVENTION: Sildenafil or no treatment in identical hypothetical cohorts. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The cost per QALY gained for sildenafil treatment compared with no therapy was $11,290 from the societal perspective and $11,230 from the third-party payer perspective. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: From the societal perspective, the cost per QALY gained associated with sildenafil was less than $50,000 if treatment-related morbidity was less than 0.8% per year, mortality was less than 0.55% per year, treatment was successful in more than 40.2% of patients, or sildenafil cost less than $244 per month. The results were sensitive to variation of erectile dysfunction utilities, but cost per QALY gained was less than $50,000 if successful treatment increased utility values by 0.05 or more on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis biased against use of sildenafil, the cost-effectiveness of sildenafil treatment compared favorably with that of accepted therapies for other medical conditions.

3',5'-Cyclic-GMP Phosphodiesterases↗

PubMed2001

The cost-utility of screening for depression in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are common in primary care and cause substantial disability, but they often remain undiagnosed. Screening is a frequently proposed strategy for increasing detection of depression. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-utility of screening for depression compared with no screening. DESIGN: Nonstationary Markov model. DATA SOURCES: The published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old primary care patients. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care payer and societal. INTERVENTIONS: Self-administered questionnaire followed by provider assessment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with no screening, the cost to society of annual screening for depression in primary care patients is $192 444/QALY. Screening every 5 years and one-time screening cost $50 988/QALY and $32 053/QALY, respectively, compared with no screening. From the payer perspective, the cost of annual screening is $225 467. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: Cost-utility ratios are most sensitive to the prevalence of major depression, the costs of screening, rates of treatment initiation, and remission rates with treatment. In Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses, the cost-utility of annual screening is less than $50 000/QALY only 2.2% of the time. In multiway analyses, four model variables must be changed to extreme values for the cost-utility of annual screening to fall below $50 000/QALY, but a change in only one variable increases the cost-utility of one-time screening to more than $50 000/QALY. One-time screening is more robustly cost-effective if screening costs are low and effective treatments are being given. CONCLUSIONS: Annual and periodic screening for depression cost more than $50 000/QALY, but one-time screening is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of screening is likely to improve if treatment becomes more effective.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

The cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors in the management of chronic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib and celecoxib (coxibs) effectively treat chronic arthritis pain and reduce ulcer complications by 50% compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, their absolute risk reduction is small and the cost-effectiveness of treatment is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the degree of risk reduction in gastrointestinal complications by coxibs offsets their increased cost compared with a generic nonselective NSAID. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of MEDLINE and published abstracts. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis who are not taking aspirin and who require long-term NSAID therapy for moderate to severe arthritis pain. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. INTERVENTIONS: Naproxen, 500 mg twice daily, and coxib, once daily. Patients intolerant of naproxen were switched to a coxib. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Using a coxib instead of a nonselective NSAID in average-risk patients cost an incremental 275 809 dollars per year to gain 1 additional QALY. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The incremental cost per QALY gained decreased to 55 803 dollars when the analysis was limited to the subset of patients with a history of bleeding ulcers. The coxib strategy became dominant when the cost of coxibs was reduced by 90% of the current average wholesale price. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, if a third-party payer was willing to pay 150 000 dollars per QALY gained, then 4.3% of average-risk patients would fall within the budget. CONCLUSIONS: The risk reduction seen with coxibs does not offset their increased costs compared with nonselective NSAIDs in the management of average-risk patients with chronic arthritis. However, coxibs may provide an acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the subgroup of patients with a history of bleeding ulcers.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2003

Primary care medicine in crisis: toward reconstruction and renewal.

Primary care is in crisis. Despite its proud history and theoretical advantages, the field has failed to hold its own among medical specialties. While the rest of medicine promises technology and sophistication, the basic model of primary care has changed little over the past half-century. Why has the transition from general practice to today's primary care been so difficult? Many of the causes of this struggle may lie within primary care itself, ranging from failure to articulate to the public (and insurers and policymakers) what value it, and it alone, can offer, to taking on an ever-broadening set of roles and responsibilities while all too often falling short of its promises. Perhaps most important, in the emerging health care system, the lack of a discrete definition of primary care has allowed managed care organizations and payers, among others, to define the role of primary care to suit their own interests. In response to a changing marketplace, political uncertainty, and shifting consumer expectations, primary care will need to reconstruct itself. The reconstruction will not be easy. Nevertheless, a process should begin that moves the field in the right direction. Building on its unique abilities, primary care can emerge as a redefined product that is attractive to patients, payers, and primary care practitioners alike.

Career Choice↗

PubMed1990

How to maintain control over the work of accounts receivable service firms.

Healthcare organizations that enter agreements with accounts receivable consulting firms should insist on various contractual safeguards. These controls allow a hospital to reject any recommendation without incurring extra costs; approve the format of bills sent to potential payers and review copies of bills later produced; insist that consultants identify themselves to payers as hospital representatives, not employees; and protect their interests in other ways.

Accounting↗