Accountability of Health Service Providers:Comparing Internal Markets and ManagedCompetition Reform Models
Vol: 20, Issue: 2, Page: 470
1997
- 88Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage88
- Downloads78
- Abstract Views10
Article Description
A numberof countries, including the U.K., NewZealand, the Netherlands, and the U.S., have attempted to reform their health care systems using "internal market" or "managed competition" reform models. These models signal a departure from reliance on passive indemnity payers or insurers and require proactive purchasers to intervene actively and manage allocation decisions made by physicians. The author explores how these models will ensure the accountability of these new decision-makers to the citizens and patients they ultimately represent. Neither model is found to address accountability issues sufficiently. However, the managed competition model offers the promise of tailoring market (exit), political (voice) and regulatory mechanisms to create the optimal mix of incentives. It is argued that every type of health system (including Canada's) has long overlooked accountability and governance mechanisms. Decision-makers must have incentives to make decisions which strike the right balance between patients' needs and societal interest, and more generally between equity and efficiency. Solving this key problem demands the attention of policymakers, lawyers, and economists.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know