Beyond capitation: how new payment experiments seek to find the 'sweet spot' in amount of risk providers and payers bear.

A key issue in the decades-long struggle over US health care spending is how to distribute liability for expenses across all market participants, from insurers to providers. The rise and abandonment in the 1990s of capitation payments-lump-sum, per person payments to health care providers to provide all care for a specified individual or group-offers a stark example of how difficult it is for providers to assume meaningful financial responsibility for patient care. This article chronicles the expansion and decline of the capitation model in the 1990s. We offer lessons learned and assess the extent to which these lessons have been applied in the development of contemporary forms of provider cost sharing, particularly accountable care organizations, which in effect constitute a search for the "sweet spot," or appropriate place on a spectrum, between providers and payers with respect to the degree of risk they absorb.

Comparative efficiency assessment of primary care service delivery models using data envelopment analysis.

This paper compares the relative productive efficiencies of four models of primary care service delivery using the data envelopment analysis method on 130 primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. A quality-controlled measure of output and two input scenarios are employed: one with full-time-equivalent labour inputs and the other with total expenditures. Regression analysis controls for the mix of patients in the practice population. Overall, we find that community health centres fare the worst when it comes to relative efficiency scores.

Fulfilling the sisters' promise. The heritage of healthcare's early days.

Members of religious orders--the sisters--built not just Catholic healthcare, but healthcare in America. A good 50 years before Henry and Edgar Kaiser got the idea, prepaid capitated health insurance was being offered by sisters who looked at what was needed and realized this was simply the best way to get it done. The sisters also created the integrated healthcare system at a time when the emerging medical elite wanted nothing to do with any patient who was not socially acceptable and potentially curable. They arranged a continuum of care for the aging sisters within their own communities. And they understood the concept of social medicine, of population-based healthcare, of healthy communities, long before these ideas became commonplace. But the sisters are gone, most of them. The question today is, How do we preserve the sisters' heritage and transfer it to a new millennium, a new healthcare system, and a new set of rules? First, it is important to understand that much of what we remember the sisters for--courage, compassion, vision-was not unique. They created many of the structures that today are the new models; but they were not alone. However, three aspects of how they expressed their vision and their faith were unique to the sisters and must be understood by those who wish to treat the path the sisters blazed. The purity of their commitment and its underlying philosophy--that the helpless and the sick must always be the point of the exercise--should pervade Catholic healthcare to its soul. These women, living in poverty, represented, and still represent, a singular group: a group of women who, having told the world that their only wish is to serve others, humble became CEOs of vast systems and trustees of huge enterprises, without ever abandoning that simple, original pledge. Although they bowed to the rule of obedience, and they were humble, the were fighters. They spoke out against poverty, bigotry, the shunning of those with certain diseases, lack of access to healthcare, stupidity, ignorance, and hate.