 |
|
Fee-for-Service vs Managed Care Medicine—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: Dr Howe argues we should have adjusted for pharmaceutical use because beneficiaries who use multiple medications would be attracted to MMC plans for their prescription drug coverage and then face rising premiums.
As we stated in our article, our survey is designed to measure consumer experiences with specific aspects of care, irrespective of benefit design. The fact that some Medicare beneficiaries may have had premiums that were higher than expected should not affect their reports about specific care experiences that are unrelated to prescription drug benefits. With the possible exception of the overall rating of the plan (or Medicare), the specific ratings and composites that we used (Table 1 in our article) are unrelated to drug coverage or premiums.
Furthermore, while the survey design did not enable us to compare prescription drug use between MMC and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, the use of prescription drugs is highly correlated with . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Bruce E. Landon, MD, MBA
landon@hcp.med.harvard.edu
Alan M. Zaslavsky, PhD;
Paul D. Cleary, PhD
Department of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Mass
RELATED ARTICLES
Fee-for-Service vs Managed Care Medicine
Roger K. Howe
JAMA. 2004;292(2):170.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of Performance of Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Managed Care
Bruce E. Landon, Alan M. Zaslavsky, Shulamit L. Bernard, Matthew J. Cioffi, and Paul D. Cleary
JAMA. 2004;291(14):1744-1752.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
