The cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid reimburse ment, and the Republican takeover of Capitol Hill and the state legislatures as a result of recent elections, suggest that the payer-driven forces of managed care, capitated payment, and the regional networks (alliances) will serve as centerpieces to improve the organization, financing, and delivery of America's health services. These "voluntary" alliances that are now being forged as an amalgam of health providers and insurance underwriters, often foreshadow the pow erful, geographically linked regional health networks that are evolving into oligopolies throughout the United States. As the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are unable to appropriately analyze the efficacy of most prospective mergers, the American health field increasingly can expect monopo listic environments. In this process, the public eventu ally may demand the formation of state health services commissions. Within this framework, the German decentralized, multipayer, multitier approach, which historically is self-governing and allows for negotiating reimbursement rates between insurers and providers, offers a preferred option to the traditional American public utility model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Thompson LHGerman health reform. New cost control initiatives. GAO/HRD-93-103. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993.
2.
Schieber GJ, Poullier J-P., Greenwald LMHealth system performance in OECD countries. Health Aff1994;13:100-112.
3.
Shortell SMThe evolution of hospital systems; unfilled promises and self-fulfilling prophecies . Med Care1988;45:177-214.
4.
Wickizer TM, Feldstein PJThe impact of HMO competition on private health insurance premiums, 1985-1992 . Inquiry1995;32:241-251.
5.
Melnick GA, Zwanziger J.State health care expenditures under competition and regulation, 1980 through 1991. Am J Public Health1995;85:1391-1396.
6.
Robinson JCHMO market penetration and hospital cost inflation in California. JAMA1991;266:2719-2723.
7.
Levit K., Lazenby HC, Cowan CA, et al. Health spending by state; new estimates for policy making. Health Aff1993;12:7-26.
8.
Anderson G., Heyssel R., Dickler R.Competition versus regulation: its effect on hospitals. Health Aff1993;12:70-80.
9.
Pfaff M.Differences in health care spending across countries; statistical evidence . J Health Polit Policy Laic1990; 15:1-68.
10.
Gilied S., Sparer M., Brown L.Comment: containing state health care expenditures-the competition vs regulation debate. Am J Public Health1995;85:1347-1349.
11.
Rice T., Brown RE, Wyn R.Holes in the Jackson Hole approach to health care reform. JAMA1993;270:1357-1362.
12.
Kronick R., Goodman DC, Wennberg J.The marketplace in the health reform; The demographic limitations of managed competition. N Engl J Med1993;328:148-152.
13.
Zwanziger J., Melnick G., Eyre KMHospitals and antitrust. Defining markets, setting standards. J Health Polit Policy Law1994;19:423-447.
14.
Vistnes G.Hospital mergers and antitrust enforcement. J Health Polit Policy Law1995;20:175-190.
15.
Weil TPThe German health care system: A model for U.S. hospital reform? Hosp Health Serv Admin1992;37:533-547.
16.
Wilsford D.States facing interests; struggles over health care policy in advanced industrial democracies. J Health Polit Policy Law1995 ;20:571-614.
17.
Dranove D., Shanley M., White WDPrice and concentration in hospital markets: The switch from patient-driven to payer-driven competition. J Law Econ1993 ;36:179-205.
18.
Reinhardt UEThe Clinton plan: A salute to American pluralism . Health Aff1994;13:161-178,
19.
Starr P., Zelman WABridge to compromise: Capitation under a budget. Health Aff1993;12(Suppl):7-23.
20.
Glaser WAThe competition vogue and its outcomes. Lancet1993;341:805-812.
21.
Skocpol T.The aftermath of defeat. J Health Polit Policy Law1995;20:485-490.
22.
Melnick G., Zwanziger J., Banezi A., et al. The effects of market structure and hospital bargaining position in hospital prices. J Health Econ1991;11:217-233.
