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?

Craig H. Kliger, MD
Bakersfield, Calif

JAMA. 1997;278(18):1490.

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

To the Editor.

—In his Editorial¹ discussing the results of a study that found cataract surgery to be performed twice as often in FFS settings when compared with prepaid ones,² Dr Obstbaum certainly was correct in his conclusion that "[a]ny system... should comply with the published standards that reflect what is in the best interest of the patient." It should be noted, however, that the imprecision of current standards may, in fact, provide a likely basis for the difference found in the study.

The primary indication outlined in the document Obstbaum cites³—ie, surgery should be performed "when cataract impaired vision no longer meets the patient's needs and the anticipated benefits of surgery exceed the risks"—is certainly a reasonable statement. Yet, by affording sizable discretion in surgical decisions, this indication actually facilitates the ability of financial incentives inherent in either system to act. If all decisions were "cut and dried," . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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