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?

Dana Gelb Safran, ScD; Alvin R. Tarlov, MD; William H. Rogers, PhD
The Health Institute Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1995;273(1):24.

	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.

—Dr Loftman's comments point to two important but separate issues. The first relates to whether indemnity (fee-for-service) insurance can fairly be considered separately from managed care. The second relates to whether employer-provided coverage can fairly be categorized as fee-for-service.

With regard to the first point, we agree that there is an increasingly important distinction between traditional indemnity insurance and indemnity insurance with utilization review, sometimes called managed indemnity coverage. In 1994, traditional indemnity insurance is increasingly rare. But at the time that our data were collected (1986 to 1988), the distinction between traditional and managed indemnity insurance was much less important; traditional indemnity was the dominant form of indemnity coverage nationally and in our study.

With regard to the second point, Loftman notes that the only true fee-for-service plan is indemnity insurance purchased by individuals (not employers or government) with no utilization review component. This form of coverage . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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