Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard. Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard national survey of Americans' views on consumer protection in managed care. 1998. Available at: http://www.kff.org/kff/library.html
Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers.Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303–350.
Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability and the reform of managed care organizations.Health Aff. 1998;17(5):50–69.
Daniels N.Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985.
Daniels N, Light D, Caplan R.Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Daniels N.Seeking Fair Treatment: From the AIDS Epidemic to National Health Care Reform. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995: chap. 4.
Daniels N, Sabin J. Closure, fair procedures, and setting limits within managed care organizations.J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(3):351–354.
Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care.Am Econ Rev. 1963; 53:941–973.
Daniels N, Sabin J. Last-chance therapies and managed care: pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy.Hastings Cent Rep. 1998;28(2):27–41.
Daniels N. Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine.Hastings Cent Rep. 1996; 26(6):10–12.
Newhouse JP. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss?J Econ Perspect. 1992;6(3): 3–21.
Sabin J, Daniels N. Making insurance coverage for new technologies reasonable and accountable.JAMA. 1998;279(9):703–704.
Gold MR, Hurley R, Lake T, Ensor T, Berenson R. A national survey of the arrangements managed-care plans make with physicians.New Engl J Med. 1995;333(25):1678–1683.
Hellinger FJ. The impact of financial incentives on physician behavior in managed care plans: a review of the evidence.Med Care Res Rev. 1996;53(3):294–314.
Orentlicher D. Paying physicians more to do less: financial incentives to limit care.Univ Richmond Law Rev. 1996;30(1):155–197.
Berwick DM. Payment by capitation and the quality of care.New Engl J Med. 1996; 335(16):1227–1231.
Pearson SD, Sabin JE, Emanuel EJ. Ethical principles to guide physician compensation systems based on capitation.New Engl J Med. 1998;339(10):689–693.
Daniels N. Why saying no to patients in the United States is so hard: cost containment, justice, and provider autonomy.New Engl J Med. 1986;314:1381–1383.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daniels, N. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. J Urban Health 76, 176–191 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02344674
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02344674