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 (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wagner, T. H. Articles by Wagner, L. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wagner, T. H. Articles by Wagner, L. S. Related Collections Insurance Coverage Managed Care - Consumers Workforce Issues

Health Affairs, Vol 18, Issue 5, 137-145
Copyright © 1999 by Project HOPE

Health Tracking

Who gets second opinions?

Six states require health plans to provide or authorize second medical opinions (SMOs). The intent of such legislation is to preserve consumer choice, to improve the flow of information, and to improve health outcomes in this era of managed care. However, it is unclear who benefits from these laws. This paper reviews the changing role of second opinions and, using a nationally representative data set from the Commonwealth Fund, examines who gets them. Of persons who had visited a doctor in the previous year, 19 percent received a second opinion, for an estimated cost of $3.2 billion in 1994. Findings suggest that cultural norms and sociocultural factors may partially determine who may benefit from SMO legislation.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. S. Wagner and T. H. Wagner The Effect of Age on the Use of Health and Self-Care Information: Confronting the Stereotype Gerontologist, June 1, 2003; 43(3): 318 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Flynn, M. A. Smith, and M. K. Davis From Physician to Consumer: The Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Health Care Utilization Med Care Res Rev, December 1, 2002; 59(4): 455 - 481. [Abstract] [PDF]