Market Failures and the Evolution of State Regulation of Managed Care

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Contemporary Problems Pub Date : 2002-09-22 DOI:10.2307/1192283
F. Sloan, M. Hall
{"title":"Market Failures and the Evolution of State Regulation of Managed Care","authors":"F. Sloan, M. Hall","doi":"10.2307/1192283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to widespread dissatisfaction with managed care, states have enacted numerous statutes, known as managed care patient protection laws, that address concerns of consumers and medical care providers. These laws include (in various combinations): (1) liability and external review provisions, (2) increasing choice of and access to providers, (3) protecting providers from undue influence, and (4) setting general coverage standards and specific coverage mandates. These laws are now well understood in terms of political responses to public and interest group concerns, but what is less well understood are justifications for managed care regulation in terms of well articulated market failures. Also lacking is an examination of how well legal enactments and enforcement activities respond to market failure theory. Accordingly, this article has two distinct parts: A detailed analysis of the market failures that managed care patient protection laws attempt to correct. And, a report of a 50-state survey of state managed care protection laws and their enforcement. We conclude that, while there are some deficiencies in managed care markets as they are constituted currently, overall the patient protection laws are not well designed to address many of the most important deficiencies since few of these laws address the fundamental source of these market flaws. At most, many of these laws attempt to treat only some of the symptoms of market defects. However, these laws are not being neglected by enforcement agencies. Enforcement activities are evident in most states, and the variation in enforcement relates to legitimate differences in legal, market and agency conditions.","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"41 1","pages":"169-206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1192283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

In response to widespread dissatisfaction with managed care, states have enacted numerous statutes, known as managed care patient protection laws, that address concerns of consumers and medical care providers. These laws include (in various combinations): (1) liability and external review provisions, (2) increasing choice of and access to providers, (3) protecting providers from undue influence, and (4) setting general coverage standards and specific coverage mandates. These laws are now well understood in terms of political responses to public and interest group concerns, but what is less well understood are justifications for managed care regulation in terms of well articulated market failures. Also lacking is an examination of how well legal enactments and enforcement activities respond to market failure theory. Accordingly, this article has two distinct parts: A detailed analysis of the market failures that managed care patient protection laws attempt to correct. And, a report of a 50-state survey of state managed care protection laws and their enforcement. We conclude that, while there are some deficiencies in managed care markets as they are constituted currently, overall the patient protection laws are not well designed to address many of the most important deficiencies since few of these laws address the fundamental source of these market flaws. At most, many of these laws attempt to treat only some of the symptoms of market defects. However, these laws are not being neglected by enforcement agencies. Enforcement activities are evident in most states, and the variation in enforcement relates to legitimate differences in legal, market and agency conditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
市场失灵与管理式医疗的国家监管演变
为了应对对管理式医疗的普遍不满,各州颁布了许多法规,即所谓的管理式医疗患者保护法,以解决消费者和医疗保健提供者的问题。这些法律包括(以各种组合形式):(1)责任和外部审查条款;(2)增加对供应商的选择和获得服务的机会;(3)保护供应商免受不当影响;(4)制定一般承保标准和具体承保任务。就公众和利益集团关注的政治反应而言,这些法律现在得到了很好的理解,但就明确的市场失灵而言,人们不太了解的是管理式医疗监管的理由。同样缺乏的是对法律制定和执法活动如何很好地响应市场失灵理论的审查。因此,本文有两个不同的部分:详细分析管理医疗患者保护法试图纠正的市场失灵。此外,还有一份对50个州的管理式医疗保护法及其执行情况的调查报告。我们的结论是,虽然目前管理式医疗市场存在一些缺陷,但总体而言,患者保护法并没有很好地设计来解决许多最重要的缺陷,因为这些法律很少解决这些市场缺陷的根本来源。这些法律中的许多至多只是试图处理市场缺陷的一些症状。然而,执法机构并没有忽视这些法律。执法活动在大多数州都很明显,执法的差异与法律、市场和机构条件的合理差异有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Re-Selection on Independent Decision Making in State Supreme Courts Voting Rights and the “Statutory Constitution” Challenging Gender in Single-Sex Spaces: Lessons from a Feminist Softball League Treaties and Human Rights: The Role of Long-Term Trends Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1