How expenditure caps and expenditure targets really work.
Every organized payment system must contain its costs in order to keep within revenue without denying benefits. Fixed expenditure caps requiring the provider to operate within its annual financial grant can be imposed on organizations like hospitals, but are fiercely resisted by the medical profession. All financial arrangements with doctors are negotiated, including systems of fixed expenditure caps and more flexible expenditure targets. If the doctors accept the principle of caps and cooperate in achieving them, they do so only as part of a negotiated settlement to avoid a worse outcome. Government's power is minimized, even when government is the payer. Caps on the physicians' sector are unusual. Instead, we see the spread of flexible targeting systems, wherein cost overruns are compensated for by lower expenditure targets the following year. Medical associations in all countries resisted even these restraints for years, but eventually accepted them, provided that target setting, judgments of overruns, utilization control, and all other features are part of a joint negotiating system. Targeting systems are often complicated because they preserve the semiprivate character of statutory health insurance and they are the result of negotiated compromises. To succeed in controlling costs, they require the cooperation of the medical association and of the rank-and-file doctors--but they can succeed. The United States has enacted a small-scale targeting system for Medicare physician payments alone. It cannot become the method for universal health insurance, which must heed lessons from abroad. Only an all-payer system can cover an entire population and contain the costs of the system. A few government officials cannot dictate and implement expenditure goals, but a system of consultation is required for setting and carrying out targets. Impartial officials can regulate hospitals according to the guidelines produced by the consultations, but the record of the medical profession in the countries reviewed here is that they insist on negotiating the final rules and rates. Americans have become bewitched by the mirage of econometric formulas automatically governing a sector, but the real problem is to devise and operate a harmonious decision-making system.
Glaser
W A
WA
Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School for Social Research, New York, NY 10011.
D002170:Canada; D003363:Cost Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D004469:Economics, Hospital; D005602:France; D005858:Germany; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards; D005102:Health Expenditures / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D006291:Health Policy / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D006278:Medicare; D017008:Negotiating; D009426:Netherlands; D010820:Physicians / Q000191:economics; D011907:Rate Setting and Review / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000592:standards; D014481:United States