This Article Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments 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 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 Web of Science (31) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schlesinger, M. J. Articles by Perreira, K. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schlesinger, M. J. Articles by Perreira, K. M. Related Collections Managed Care Managed Care - Physicians Quality Of Care

Health Affairs, Vol 16, Issue 1, 106-124
Copyright © 1997 by Project HOPE

Journal Article

Medical professionalism under managed care: the pros and cons of utilization review

We contend that the full consequences of managed care for American medicine and health care professionals can be more fully understood if strategies for managing care are identified-in particular, strategies for the administrative oversight of professional decision making. In this paper we apply this perspective to the study of third-party utilization review, making use of a national survey of firms contracting to provide prior authorization for hospitalization in 1992. Survey data suggest that (1) existing approaches to utilization review differ greatly among review firms; (2) review practices that might improve agency and accountability seem to be overlooked by most review firms; and (3) a large number of review firms employ practices that undermine professional autonomy in seemingly inappropriate ways.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Kronebusch, M. Schlesinger, and T. Thomas Managed Care Regulation in the States: The Impact on Physicians' Practices and Clinical Autonomy Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, April 1, 2009; 34(2): 219 - 259. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Z. Harel, D. W. Smith, and J. M. Rowles A Comparison of Psychiatrists' Clinical-Impression-Based and Social Workers' Computer-Generated GAF Scores Psychiatr Serv, March 1, 2002; 53(3): 340 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Wynia, D. S. Cummins, J. B. VanGeest, and I. B. Wilson Physician Manipulation of Reimbursement Rules for Patients: Between a Rock and a Hard Place JAMA, April 12, 2000; 283(14): 1858 - 1865. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Kao, D. C. Green, A. M. Zaslavsky, J. P. Koplan, and P. D. Cleary The Relationship Between Method of Physician Payment and Patient Trust JAMA, November 18, 1998; 280(19): 1708 - 1714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. Miller Center Stage on the Patient Protection Agenda: Grievance and Appeal Rights J. Law Med. Ethics, June 1, 1998; 26(2): 89 - 99. [PDF]

				G. D. Schiff and T. D. Rucker Computerized Prescribing: Building the Electronic Infrastructure for Better Medication Usage JAMA, April 1, 1998; 279(13): 1024 - 1029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Mechanic The Functions and Limitations of Trust in the Provision of Medical Care Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1998; 23(4): 661 - 686. [Abstract] [PDF]