Does a prepaid group practice deliver less care than the fee-for-service system when both serve comparable populations with comparable benefits? To answer this question, we randomly assigned a group of 1580 persons to receive care free of charge from either a fee-for-service physician of their choice (431 persons) or the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (1149 persons). In addition, 733 prior enrollees of the Cooperative were studied as a control group. The rate of hospital admissions in both groups at the Cooperative was about 40 per cent less than in the fee-for-service group (P less than 0.01), although ambulatory-visit rates were similar. The calculated expenditure rate for all services was about 25 per cent less in the two Cooperative groups (P less than 0.01 for the experimental group, P less than 0.05 for the control group). The number of preventive visits was higher in the prepaid groups, but this difference does not explain the reduced hospitalization. The similarity of use between the two prepaid groups suggests that the mix of health risks at the Cooperative was similar to that in the fee-for-service system. The lower rate of use that we observed, along with comparable reductions found in non-controlled studies by others, suggests that the style of medicine at prepaid group practices is markedly less "hospital-intensive" and, consequently, less expensive.

No abstract

Does free medical care lead to better health than insurance plans that require the patient to shoulder part of the cost? In an effort to answer this question, we studied 3958 people between the ages of 14 and 61 who were free of disability that precluded work and had been randomly assigned to a set of insurance plans for three or five years. One plan provided free care; the others required enrollees to pay a share of their medical bills. As previously reported, patients in the latter group made approximately one-third fewer visits to a physician and were hospitalized about one-third less often. For persons with poor vision and for low-income persons with high blood pressure, free care brought an improvement (vision better by 0.2 Snellen lines, diastolic blood pressure lower by 3 mm Hg); better control of blood pressure reduced the calculated risk of early death among those at high risk. For the average participant, as well as for subgroups differing in income and initial health status, no significant effects were detected on eight other measures of health status and health habits. Confidence intervals for these eight measures were sufficiently narrow to rule out all but a minimal influence, favorable or adverse, of free care for the average participant. For some measures of health in subgroups of the population, however, the broader confidence intervals make this conclusion less certain.

Treatment interruptions and non-adherence with imatinib, both of which could lead to undesired clinical and economic outcomes, appear to be prevalent. Physicians and pharmacists should educate patients and closely monitor adherence to therapy, as improving adherence and limiting treatment interruptions may not only optimise clinical outcomes but also reduce the economic burden of CML.

We examined geographic variation in the rate of inappropriate hospitalization and the effect of cost sharing on that rate. The medical records of 1132 adults hospitalized in a randomized trial of health insurance plans were reviewed by two physicians who were blinded to the patients' insurance plan. They judged 23 percent of the admissions to be inappropriate and an additional 17 percent to have been avoidable by the use of ambulatory surgery. The percentage of inappropriate admissions varied among six sites (from 10 to 35 percent), but areas with low total admission rates did not necessarily have low proportions of inappropriate admissions. In plans with cost sharing for all services, 22 percent of admissions and 34 percent of hospital days were classified as inappropriate, as compared with 24 percent of admissions and 35 percent of hospital days in the plan under which care was free to the patient (these differences were not statistically significant). Our data show that a substantial fraction of hospitalization is potentially avoidable. Because cost sharing did not selectively reduce inappropriate hospitalization, it is important to develop other mechanisms to do so.