Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ethical Importance of Differences Between Managed Care Systems

  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  1. Rodwin MA. Medicine Money & Morals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Council on Ethical and Journal Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Ethical issues in managed care. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 273:330-35.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Christensen KT. Ethically important distinction among managed care organizations. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 1995; 23:223-29.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Symposium issue, Managed Health Care, Trends in Health Care, Law & Ethics. 1995; 10.

  5. References on Ethical Issues in Managed Care, 340 citations, University of Minnesota, Center for Biomedical Ethics, Minneapolis, MN.

  6. Symposium issue, Managed care systems: Emerging health issues from an ethics perspective. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 1995; 23:3.

  7. Fallon RP. Not-for-profit not equal to no profit: profitability planning in not-for-profit organizations. Health Care Management Review. 1991; 16(3):47-61.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heimoff S. California HMO conversion: billions at stake, boon to charities. Northern California Medicine Journal (July–August); 1995:6-7.

  9. Cal. Code Non-Profit Corp., 5130-B (West 1980.)

  10. Insurance Code, State of California, supp., 11510 (Deering 1996.)

  11. Freudenheim M. Penny-pinching HMOs showed their generosity in executive paychecks. New York Times. (April 11); 1995:sec.C1.

  12. Hiltzik M, Olmos D. Are executives at HMOs paid too much money? Los Angeles Times. (August 30); 1995:sec.A-13.

  13. California Medical Association. Know-Keen Health Plan Expenditures Summary. Sacramento, CA: Medical Association; (February); 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clancy CM, Brody H. Managed care: Journal Jekyll or Hyde? Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 273:338-39.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kassirer JP. Managed care and the morality of the marketplace. New England Journal of Medicine 1995; 333:50-52.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wholey D, Feldman R, Christianson JB. The effect of market structure on HMO premiums. Journal Health Economics. 1995; 14:81-105.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Annas GJ, Magic, miracle, & the market: Do we need a new medical ethics for managed care? Boston University School of Medicine Alumni Report. (Fall); 1995:18-27.

  18. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Report Card Pilot Project/Technical Report. New York, NY: NCQA; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gottlieb M. Picking a health plan: A shot in the dark. New York Times. (January 14); 1996:sec.3-1.

  20. Eisenberg Journal M. Economics. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 273:1670-71.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bindman AB. Primary and managed care: Ingredients for health care reform. Western Journal of Medicine. 1994; 161:78-82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Emanuel E. Preserving the physician-patient relationship in the era of managed care. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 273:323-29.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Financial incentives to limit care: Financial implications for IIMOs and IPAs. In: Code of Medical Ethics-Reports of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. 1992; 130-35.

  24. Orentlicher D. Managed care and the threat to the patient-physician relationship. Trends in Health Care, Law & Ethics. 1995; 10:19-24.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hillman A. Health maintenance organizations, financial incentives, and physicians' judgments. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1990; 112: 891-93.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gold MR, Hurley HT, Lake T, Ensor T, Berenson R. A national survey of the arrangements managed-care plans make with physicians. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995; 333:1694-97.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hillman AL, Welch WP, Pauly MV. Contractual arrangements between HMOs and primary care physicians: Three-tiered HMOs and risk pools. Medical Care. 1992; 30:136-48.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tiberi B. Don't become an HMO victim First. (July 24); 1995:98-102.

  29. Emanuel E Medical ethics in the era of managed care: The need for institutional structures instead of principles for individual cases. Journal of Clinical Ethics. 1995; 6:335-38.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morreim EH. Balancing Act: The New Medical Ethics of Medicine's New Economics. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991: pp. 37-38.

  31. Levinson DF. Toward full disclosure of referral restrictions and financial incentives by prepaid health plans. New England Journal of Medicine. 1987; 317:1729-31.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gesenway D. How to make smart decisions when under pressure to integrate. ACP Observer. 1995; 15:1-19.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Krier R. Anesthesiologists sue Aetna: Made us skimp on quality. American Medical News. (September 11); 1995:4-5.

  34. Hiltzik M, Olmos D. A mixed diagnosis for HMOs. The Los Angeles Times. (August 27); 1995:sec. A1.

  35. Miles S, Koepp R, Weber E. End-of-life treatment in managed care — the potential and the peril. Western Journal of Medicine. 1995; 163:302-305.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Relman AS. Medical practice under the Clinton reforms — Avoiding domination by business. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329:1574-76.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Meisel Journal. Quality of Care in HMOs: A Review of the Literature. Sacramento, CA: CAHMO; (September); 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  38. California Cooperative HEDIS Reporting Initiative. Report on Quality of Care Measures. San Francisco, CA: CCHRI; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American College of Physician, University of California San Francisco, USA

    Kate Christensen

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55414

    Steven H. Miles

Authors
  1. Kate Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven H. Miles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christensen, K., Miles, S.H. The Ethical Importance of Differences Between Managed Care Systems. HEC Forum 9, 313–322 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008895520062

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008895520062

Keywords

Search

Navigation