This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David C. Hadorn, MD; Robert H. Brook, MD
The RAND Corporation Santa Monica, Calif

JAMA. 1992;267(23):3152.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We believe that necessary-care guidelines could provide a basis for deciding what services should be paid for out of tax dollars or by private insurance plans that choose to provide the benefits we describe in our article. Use of necessary-care guidelines would in no way preclude patients from obtaining services for clinical reasons not covered under those guidelines. Indeed, insurance policies would likely arise to cover such services. However, such policies should not be provided out of pretax dollars (ie, as a nontaxable employee benefit)¹; individuals wishing to purchase additional services (or insurance to cover those services) should do so without benefit of public subsidy. Finally, we wish to reiterate our belief that a physician- and patient-friendly appeals mechanism should be available to accommodate unusual or atypical clinical presentations that are not covered by the guideline.

While we understand Dr Graham's wish that patients and physicians should . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?