This Article Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (88) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Newhouse, J. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Newhouse, J. P. Related Collections Health Reform Insurance Coverage

Health Affairs, Vol 13, Issue 1, 132-146
Copyright © 1994 by Project HOPE

Journal Article

Patients at risk: health reform and risk adjustment

The Clinton proposal recognizes the need for successful risk adjustment and calls for the National Health Board to promulgate a risk adjustment formula by 1 April 1995. Unfortunately, risk adjustment technology is primitive; using observable characteristics such as age only slightly ameliorates the flawed incentives of not adjusting at all. Without major improvements in risk adjustment technology we face a trade-off between giving plans an incentive to select good risks and an incentive to produce at lowest cost. Pure capitation maximizes both incentives; pure fee-for-service minimizes both. I suggest experimentation with paying plans partly on the basis of risk-adjusted capitation and partly on the basis of a fee schedule reflecting actual use (partial capitation). In the draft Clinton plan, the option given to alliances not to offer plans priced above 120 percent of the weighted average premium appears to assume better risk adjustment ability than is now possible. This option should be relaxed or abandoned.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. A. Ferraris, F. H. Edwards, D. M. Shahian, and S. P. Ferraris Risk Stratification and Comorbidity Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 199 - 246. [Full Text]

				J. S. Weissman, M. Wachterman, and D. Blumenthal When Methods Meet Politics: How Risk Adjustment Became Part of Medicare Managed Care Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 2005; 30(3): 475 - 504. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Rice and K. A. Desmond The Distributional Consequences of a Medicare Premium Support Proposal Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, December 1, 2004; 29(6): 1187 - 1226. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. A. Ferraris and S. P. Ferraris Risk Stratification and Comorbidity Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 187 - 224. [Full Text]

				E. M. Weissman, R. A. Rosenheck, and S. M. Essock Impact of Modifying Risk Adjustment Models on Rankings of Access to Care in the VA Mental Health Report Card Psychiatr Serv, September 1, 2002; 53(9): 1153 - 1158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G.C. Pope, C.J. Urato, E.D. Kulas, R. Kronick, and T. Gilmer Prevalence, expenditures, utilization, and payment for persons with MS in insured populations Neurology, January 8, 2002; 58(1): 37 - 43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Robinson Blended Payment Methods in Physician Organizations Under Managed Care JAMA, October 6, 1999; 282(13): 1258 - 1263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. P. Hofer, R. A. Hayward, S. Greenfield, E. H. Wagner, S. H. Kaplan, and W. G. Manning The Unreliability of Individual Physician "Report Cards" for Assessing the Costs and Quality of Care of a Chronic Disease JAMA, June 9, 1999; 281(22): 2098 - 2105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. T. Schut Health Care Reform in the Netherlands: Balancing Corporatism, Etatism, and Market Mechanisms Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, September 1, 1995; 20(3): 615 - 652. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. E. Rasell Cost Sharing in Health Insurance -- A Reexamination N. Engl. J. Med., April 27, 1995; 332(17): 1164 - 1168. [Full Text]