PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 2 August 2001, pp. 283-290
Switching to Gatekeeping: Changes in Expenditures and Utilization for Children
,,
From the * Institute for Health Policy, Division of General
Medicine, and Background. Gatekeeping has been a
central strategy in the cost-containment initiatives of managed care
organizations. Little empirical research describes the impact of
switching into a gatekeeping plan on health care expenditures and
utilization for children.
Objective. To determine the likelihood of a parent with a
chronically ill child enrolling in a health plan with gatekeeping, as
well as the effects of gatekeeping on health care expenditures and utilization for children, especially those with chronic conditions.
Design. We followed a cohort of 1839 children who either
voluntarily switched to a gatekeeping plan or remained in an indemnity
plan from 1991 through 1994. Study participants were children of
employees of a large hospital. The gatekeeping plan was virtually
identical to the previous indemnity plan except for lower monthly
employee contribution and the requirement for a primary care physician to preapprove subspecialty referrals. We determined the likelihood of a
household containing a child with a chronic condition enrolling in the
gatekeeping plan, as well as mean annual total, subspecialty, and
primary care expenditures and utilization for all children and children
with chronic conditions.
Results. Households switching to gatekeeping were less
likely to have children with chronic illness (8% vs 15%). Total and
subspecialty expenditures for all children decreased more in the
gatekeeping group (53% and 59%, respectively) than in the indemnity
group (11% and 6%, respectively). For children with chronic
conditions, mean visits to subspecialists decreased 57% in the
gatekeeping group but increased 31% in the indemnity group. Mean
visits to primary care physicians decreased 23% in the gatekeeping
group compared with 13% in indemnity group.
Conclusion. Parents of children with a chronic condition
were much less likely than other parents to switch to a gatekeeping
plan. Switching to gatekeeping was associated with reduced visits to
specialists but did not increase the involvement of primary care
physicians in the management of children with chronic conditions. The
implications of these findings for the health of children are
unknown.
Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy,
Massachusetts General Hospital for Children and Harvard Medical School,
Boston, Massachusetts.
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
The requirement for a designated primary care physician to
preapprove subspecialty referrals is commonly referred to as
gatekeeping. Gatekeeping has been a central component of managed care
strategies to contain health care costs.1 An assigned
primary care physician is expected to contain health care costs by
managing most conditions and referring patients to more expensive
subspecialists only when circumstances warrant. In addition, although
having a primary care physician increases use of preventive health
services and improves coordination of care when multiple problems
require subspecialist services,2 evidence that gatekeeping
ensures these benefits is lacking.
Critics charge that gatekeeping restricts access to appropriate
services, and patients have objected to this barrier placed between
them and subspecialty care.3-5 Patients with chronic
conditions who have an established relationship with a subspecialist
may particularly object to gatekeeping.
Previous studies have shown that adults with chronic illness were less
likely to switch into a managed care plan and that expenditures and
utilization were usually lower for those who did switch compared with
those who did not.6-9 Although 1 case-control study
suggested that managed care plans enroll fewer children with chronic
illness,10 no previous study has addressed whether or not
parents of children with chronic conditions avoid gatekeeping per se.
In addition, no previous study has isolated gatekeeping from other
managed care cost containment strategies to assess the independent
effect of the gatekeeping characteristic on the likelihood of switching
plans, or on costs or use of care for children.
Medicaid gatekeeping demonstration projects in the 1980s showed
decreased likelihood of a child seeing a subspecialist, but little
change in the use of primary care.7 This study by Hurley
and colleagues7 did not identify children with chronic
conditions and therefore could not assess physician utilization for
this population. The report by Martin and colleagues11 of
a randomized trial of gatekeeping found modest reductions in costs and
ambulatory subspecialty use associated with gatekeeping, but this trial
was too small to consider effects on children independently. Forrest
and colleagues12 recently addressed gatekeeping in
pediatric practice through a multisite study of referrals. Although
this study suggested higher rates of subspecialty referral in
gatekeeping plans than indemnity plans, the design used physicians to
identify and enroll patients and therefore could not assess patient
utilization of subspecialists that bypassed the primary care physician.
Furthermore, that study examined referrals rather than actual
utilization.
In this study of an employed population, we sought to determine 1) the
likelihood that a household with a chronically ill child would switch
to a gatekeeping plan, and 2) the effect of switching to a gatekeeping
plan on expenditures and utilization for all children, as well as
children with chronic conditions. We hypothesized that 1) parents of
children with chronic conditions would be less likely than other
parents to choose a plan with gatekeeping, 2) overall utilization of
subspecialists would decrease for children in gatekeeping, and 3)
children with chronic conditions who switched to the gatekeeping plan
would have lower but continued utilization of subspecialists and
increased use of primary care physicians.
Study Design
We obtained all medical claims for a cohort of employees of
Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) who were continuously enrolled in
Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield (MBCBS) medical insurance benefit
plans from 1991 through 1994. Participants were enrolled in either of 2 plans: an indemnity plan or a gatekeeper plan. The indemnity plan,
offered throughout the 4 years of the study, provided unlimited access
to any physician contracting with MBCBS. The gatekeeping plan was
initially offered to employees in November and December of 1992, with
an activation date of January 1, 1993. The gatekeeping plan had a lower
employee premium contribution (average difference approximately
$30/month).
The gatekeeping plan required each enrolled member to select a primary
care physician from a list of practitioners provided by the insurer.
Primary care physicians had to preapprove all subspecialty visits. The
gatekeeping plan provided automatic eligibility for all pediatricians,
internists, and family practitioners as primary care physicians, but
generally prohibited designation of subspecialists as primary care
physicians. Both the gatekeeping and indemnity plans reimbursed
physicians on the same per visit rates; thus physicians had no
financial incentive to limit costs of care in the gatekeeping group.
Study Population
MGH employed 10 284 people who obtained health insurance
through their hospital affiliation between 1991 and 1994. Before the
initiation of the gatekeeping plan in 1993, most employees (8617) were
covered by 1 of 2 MBCBS indemnity benefit plans: Master Health Plus
(6656), or Master Medical (1961), a more basic plan with significant
deductibles and coinsurance provisions. We excluded employees with
Master Medical because this plan was not comparable to the gatekeeping
plan. We also excluded employees for whom there was disagreement
between MGH and MBCBS records concerning enrollment status (2173). From
the set of continuously enrolled subscribers in the MBCBS Master Health
Plus indemnity plan or the gatekeeping plans (3311), we identified all
subscribers with family or dependent coverage (1061) and included the
claims of the benefit holder and all of their children age <18 years
on Jan 1, 1991 (1839) in this study. The majority of households had
either 4 years of claims in the indemnity plan (565) or 2 years of
indemnity and 2 years of gatekeeping (496; Fig
1). We excluded small numbers of
households that either switched into gatekeeping in 1994 (20 households, 73 children) or switched back from gatekeeping to indemnity
in 1994 (11 households, 42 children).
METHODS
Top
Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Schematic representation of study design including sample sizes for
households and children in gatekeeping and indemnity plans.
Preparation of Data Files
MBCBS and MGH identified all employees and their spouses/dependents who were covered through MGH by MBCBS plans in 1991 through 1994. Information on job category and salary range from MGH was merged with MBCBS claims using alias numbers, and all unique identifiers were removed. Blue Shield (professional) claims included total payments, place of service (inpatient, outpatient, nursing home, office), physician specialty, type of service, procedure code, and a single diagnosis code. Blue Cross (institutional) claims data included total payments, ancillary expenditures, room and board expenditures, and place of service. Extended benefits claims included total payments and location.
Definition of Variables
The principal outcome in the analysis of health plan switching was a dichotomous variable defined as a household (enrollee plus at least 1 dependent under age 18) which either 1) enrolled in the gatekeeping plan by January 1, 1993, or 2) remained in the indemnity plan.
An expenditures outcome variable was defined as the payments made by the insurer (MBCBS), adjusted to 1993 dollars. Annual mean total expenditures were determined by adding all professional, institutional, and extended benefits expenditures for each child for each year of the study and then dividing by the number of study participants. Mean annual primary care and subspecialty expenditures were determined by summing total professional expenditures for primary care and subspecialists and then dividing each sum by the number of children.
Utilization outcome variables included mean annual number of visits to primary care physicians and subspecialists. Well child visits were identified using International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and current procedural terminology codes for well-child examination or general medical examination. Hospital admissions identified from institutional claims were summed independently for indemnity and gatekeeping plans and adjusted to account for differences in the size of the groups.
Primary predictors of switching included children and adults with chronic conditions. We identified children as having a chronic condition by a previously developed algorithm using specific ICD-9 codes.13,14 We excluded laboratory and radiology claims to avoid the inclusion of ICD-9 codes used to "rule-out" a diagnosis. Adults with a chronic condition were identified by using ICD-9 codes for the 10 most common chronic conditions in the study population. Any child or adult with a claim for a chronic condition during the period of the study was identified as having a chronic condition.
We tested both employee income and job category (physician, nurse, service/other, and clerical) in our models of switching to the gatekeeping plan and found that job category performed better as a predictor of switching as judged by the amount of variance explained. We include here only the data for job category. For purposes of comparison, mean physician income was $102 786, mean nurse income was $57 764, mean clerical income was $32 367, and mean income of other employees was $37 135.
Primary care physician visits were defined as any visit to a physician without subspecialty certification, or to physicians listed by BCBS as a primary care physician. Subspecialist visits were defined as any visit to a physician with subspecialty certification.
In an effort to separate the effects of changing plans from the effects of changing primary care physician, we attempted to identify patients who switched their primary care provider as a result of their change in plan. New primary care physicians were identified by the existence of >1 new claim from a previously unencountered primary care physician after January 1, 1993, and no claims from a primary care physician after January 1, 1993 who had submitted claims during 1991 or 1992.
Analysis
We initially tested child and household predictors of switching
into the gatekeeping plan using the 
2 and
Student's t tests. A multivariable logistic regression
model was used to identify independent predictors of switching where the dependent variable was household enrollment in gatekeeper or
indemnity after January 1, 1993. Statistical significance was set at
P < .05 for a 2-tailed test.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
Study Population
The children in study households had an average age of 9 years, and over half had at least 1 sibling. Parents were usually married and were on average 40 years old. The parent with the health insurance was as likely to be male as female. Children with a chronic condition were identified in 12% of households. Conditions identified included asthma, affective disorders, seizure disorders, hearing loss, congenital heart disease, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, diabetes, thyroid conditions, hereditary blood dyscrasias, and congenital musculoskeletal anomalies.
Switching
The households in gatekeeping and indemnity plans were similar in several respects, including the mean age of the employed parent, the mean age of the children, and employment status as a nurse or service worker (Table 1). Gatekeeping and indemnity households differed in some important respects as well. Indemnity households had a higher proportion of children with a chronic condition (15%) than gatekeeping households (8%, P < .001). Indemnity households were also more likely to have adults with a chronic illness (44%) than gatekeeping households (23%, P < .001). Similarly, indemnity households were more likely than gatekeeping households to include physicians (29% vs 12%), and clerical workers were more prevalent in the gatekeeping plan (41% vs 26%, overall P < .001).
|
Results from the multivariate analysis confirmed that parents of children with a chronic condition were significantly less likely to enroll in the gatekeeping plan (odds ratio [OR] 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3-0.7) than other parents (Table 2). The presence of a chronically ill adult in the household also was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of switching to the gatekeeping plan (OR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.3-0.5). Compared with nurses, physicians were less likely to switch to the gatekeeping plan (OR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2-0.5).
|
Expenditures: All Children
We determined mean health care expenditures for each year from 1991 through 1994 for all children in the indemnity and gatekeeping groups (Table 3). Mean total expenditures for children in the gatekeeping group decreased 53% from $486 before switching (average of 1991 and 1992) to $180 in 1994. Mean total expenditures in the indemnity group decreased 13% over the same time period, from $623 (average of 1991 and 1992) to $554 in 1994. Mean total expenditures decreased 42% in the gatekeeping group compared with the indemnity group (Fig 2, P < .001 for difference). In the first year following the change in health benefit plan (1993), mean total expenditures increased 20% in the indemnity group, but decreased dramatically (80%) in the gatekeeping group (P < .001 for difference).
|
|
Inpatient expenditures accounted for a significant proportion of total expenditures for both groups (68%) and remained consistently higher in the indemnity group than in the gatekeeping group (data not shown). However, changes in outpatient expenditures did differ between the indemnity and gatekeeping groups. Mean annual subspecialty expenditures decreased 6% in the indemnity group and 59% in the gatekeeping group (Fig 2, P < .001 for difference). Outpatient expenditures for primary care physician services declined for both the indemnity (5%) and gatekeeping (53%) groups over the period of the study (P = .004 for difference).
Utilization: All Children
Changes in utilization paralleled changes in expenditures (Table 3). The mean number of outpatient visits to primary care physicians before 1993 was similar in the indemnity (1.9 visits/year) and gatekeeping groups (1.6 visits/year). In 1993, children in indemnity continued to see their pediatrician at the same rate (1.8 visits/year), but primary care visits in the gatekeeping group dropped dramatically in 1993 (0.5 visits/year) and remained significantly lower than indemnity in 1994 (0.9 visits/y). The difference between the indemnity group and the gatekeeper group in the change in visits to primary care physicians was highly significant for both years (P < .001 for difference). Similar changes in the gatekeeping group occurred in visits coded as well-child visits.
Visits to subspecialists also declined dramatically in the gatekeeping group after the switch to gatekeeping (1.6/year in 1991 and 1992 to 0.5/year in 1994), whereas visits to subspecialists in the indemnity group did not change (P < .001 for difference).
Hospital admissions were uncommon in our study population and decreased over time. Nonetheless, admissions were consistently higher in the indemnity group (P = .02 for 1991 and 1992). The difference in the decreased rate of admissions between the gatekeeping (76%) and indemnity plans (49%) was not statistically significant (P = .18 for difference).
Children With Chronic Conditions
Before 1993, children with chronic conditions in the indemnity group had higher mean annual total expenditures and subspecialist expenditures than children with chronic conditions who later enrolled in the gatekeeping group (Table 4). These differences were primarily attributable to a higher rate of hospitalization for patients in the indemnity group. Although mean total expenditures for chronically ill children in the indemnity group remained relatively stable throughout the 4 years, total expenditures dropped dramatically for the gatekeeping group in 1993 (P = .03 for difference) and remained lower than the indemnity group in 1994 (P = .32 for difference). The expenditures for primary care physicians and subspecialists followed similar patterns, although the difference in the changes in expenditures between the 2 groups was not statistically significant.
|
Mean visits to subspecialists for children with chronic conditions decreased 57% in the gatekeeping group while increasing 31% in the indemnity group (P = .005 for difference). Mean visits to primary care physicians for children with chronic conditions decreased more in the gatekeeper group (23%) than in the indemnity group (13%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .71 for difference).
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
The characteristics of the health plan changes described in this study allowed us to examine the effects of the introduction of gatekeeping on plan choice with few potential confounding elements. This study found that parents of children with chronic conditions were more likely to pay an additional premium to maintain direct access to subspecialists rather than switch to a less expensive plan with an administrative barrier to subspecialist care. In addition, we found a dramatic decrease in subspecialty expenditures and utilization for children with and without a chronic condition associated with switching to a gatekeeping plan. Contrary to our expectations, we found a decrease in the use of primary care physicians among all children who switched to the gatekeeping plan, including children with chronic conditions.
Health Plan Choice
Previous studies have shown a strong preference among adults with chronic conditions to avoid managed care organizations,6 but no study has demonstrated this selection effect for families whose children have chronic conditions. In our study, parents of chronically ill children had a strong preference for the indemnity plan. Furthermore, the considerable difference in expenditures for hospitalization before 1993 between the groups of children with chronic conditions suggests that only children with chronic conditions at little risk of hospitalization enrolled in the gatekeeping plan. Although our results indicate the importance of a child's health status in parental health plan decisions, additional investigation is required to determine the relative importance of health status among all members of a household on health plan choice.
The costs of care for children with chronic conditions are low compared with their adult counterparts and have little impact on individual plan costs or local markets. Nonetheless, these data suggest that the bias against gatekeeping among parents of children with chronic conditions can create an unequal distribution of children with chronic conditions among health plans with different features. Plans with lower rates of chronic conditions seem to perform better on health status measures and per member health care expenditures. Managed care organizations use these performance measures to market their plans to employers, consumers, and shareholders.
Perceived access to subspecialty care may be among the most important factors in health plan choice for populations with chronic conditions and their caregivers. In previous studies, the disinclination for adults with chronic conditions to enroll in managed care was similar to our results, suggesting that attitudes toward gatekeeping are important in affecting choices for and against managed care.6 As employers attempt to limit their costs, the differences in employee contribution between gatekeeping and indemnity plans are likely to increase dramatically, forcing those patients with chronic conditions to pay higher premiums for the plans without gatekeeping. The poorest parents are faced with the most difficult choices between financial savings and direct access to subspecialists. The segregation of relatively well and relatively ill segments of the population into different insurance pools also threatens to subvert the notion of spreading risk over a wide population base to make care more affordable for all.16
We found physicians were less likely than other types of hospital employees to switch into the gatekeeping plan. Physicians' negative attitudes toward managed care in general17 and gatekeeping in particular18 may influence their own health benefit plan choices, as may physician's higher incomes.
Expenditures and Utilization
Health care expenditures decreased 42% more for children switching into gatekeeping compared with children in the indemnity plan. This dramatic difference in costs may have several explanations.
First, parents who chose to change plans may have known that they were unlikely to use health care in the near future. We controlled for the presence of chronic conditions and focused our attention on comparisons in the second year after switching (1994) to separate as much as possible the effects of low anticipated utilization from the effects of gatekeeping. The increase in total costs between 1993 and 1994 for the gatekeeping group suggests that low anticipated health care utilization could well be an important determinant of the likelihood of switching plans. The absence of primary care substitution for specialty care and the absolute reduction in primary care in the gatekeeping plan is additional evidence that selection based on propensity to use health care may be an important explanation for the decreased costs and utilization in those children who switched to gatekeeping.
Second, the act of changing plans may itself create barriers to care.19,20 Burstin and colleagues19 found delays in patients seeking help when ill were associated with changing health plans and attributed this finding to confusion about where to seek care and loss of a relationship with a primary care physician. Consistently lower expenditures in a newly introduced plan may create an incentive for insurers to introduce new plans continuously, with potentially disruptive effects on patient-physician relationships.21,22 A recent study has found that patients were nearly twice as likely to change their usual source of care as a result of changing insurance plans if their new insurer was a managed care organization.23 This difference may be attributable, in part, to the requirement for a gatekeeper in managed care.
Third, gatekeeping may have accounted for the persistent decrease in subspecialist visits. Unlike total costs, which increased dramatically between 1993 and 1994 for the gatekeeping group, subspecialist visits in the gatekeeping group remained significantly lower in 1994. The 67% decrease in subspecialty visits in our study is nearly twice the reduction in subspecialty use found by Martin and colleagues11 in their randomized trial of gatekeeping. Their study did not isolate children and had a low rate of subspecialist visits (mean = 0.6 visits). The large magnitude of the decrease in subspecialist utilization in our study may relate to the issues discussed above, as well as local market factors and the population we studied (children of hospital employees). Specifically, children in the indemnity plan averaged nearly 2 subspecialist visits per year, significantly more than published reports of other child populations.7
To the extent that the decrease in subspecialist use represents more appropriate health care use, the gatekeeping plan may have been effective in reducing inappropriate care.24 Gatekeeping may be more effective in decreasing costs in populations with relatively high subspecialty use. Nonetheless, the large majority (60%) of costs for children are from hospitalizations,25 and these costs are unlikely to be affected by having an assigned primary care physician preapprove subspecialty referrals.
Although we were not able to assess quality of care in this study, the results of the utilization analysis indicate some potential problems. Visits to primary care physicians decreased for both the gatekeeping group and the indemnity group over the course of the study. This is to be expected from the aging of the cohort; older children are hospitalized and visit a physician less often than younger children. Nonetheless, the decrease in overall primary care physician visits and well-child visits in the gatekeeping group compared with the indemnity group is concerning insofar as one of the goals of having an assigned primary care physician is to increase the use of preventive health services. The introduction of the gatekeeping plan likely disrupted ongoing patient-physician relationships with primary care providers as well as subspecialists.
Children With Chronic Conditions
Among the most striking findings of this study is the decrease in expenditures and physician visits among children with chronic conditions in the gatekeeping group. The children with chronic conditions in our study were relatively high consumers of subspecialty care (mean subspecialist visits = 3.3/year) before January 1993, and are therefore likely to have had an established relationship with a subspecialty provider. Changing to a gatekeeping plan clearly modified this relationship with a principal provider of care. It is worth noting that mean subspecialist visits for children with chronic conditions increased in the indemnity group after the introduction of gatekeeping. We can speculate that that this increase in subspecialist visits may have been because of a decline in health status for this population and/or a compensatory increase in visits used by subspecialists to fill empty appointments slots formerly occupied by children who switched to gatekeeping.
The right mix of subspecialist and primary care physician involvement in the care of children with chronic conditions is unknown and will vary by condition.26 Nonetheless, we expected that the primary care physician would provide a certain proportion of the care previously provided by subspecialists for children with chronic conditions who switched to the gatekeeping plan. However, we did not observe a significant increase in visits to primary care physicians among children with chronic conditions in the gatekeeping group, indicating that gatekeeping is unlikely to have improved the delivery of primary care services to this population.
This study has several limitations. The employed population we studied may be atypical of the employed population generally, and our results are set in the context of a particular health care market. These factors limit the generalizability of our results. We did not adjust for differences in case mix between the indemnity and gatekeeping groups because we were more interested in the actual differences between the groups. Case-mix adjustment would no doubt decrease some of the differences observed, but also distort real costs within each system. Our expenditures data suggest that parents of sicker chronically ill children demonstrated an even stronger aversion to gatekeeping than parents of children with less costly chronic conditions. The small numbers of chronically ill children in our cohort did not permit us to identify sub-groups among the chronic conditions, such as adolescents with mental illness, who may have been affected differently by the change in health plans. We followed children for only two years after the switch in health plan, and therefore could not assess differences between gatekeeping and indemnity arrangements beyond that point.
Parents of children with a chronic condition chose to pay higher health plan contribution rather than switch to a health plan that required a primary care physician approve all subspecialty referrals. Children's health status appears to be an important factor in parental health plan choice. Switching plans resulted in decreased costs, but we are unable to determine to what extent the lower costs stem from the disruption of care that follows a change in health plans or gatekeeping. Although it remains unclear if patients or physicians benefited from the introduction of gatekeeping, our study found switching to gatekeeping was associated with potentially significant disruption in care for children. The full effects of switching to a gatekeeping plan on the health of children remain unknown.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This study was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr Ferris received support from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program (AAP/NICHD: K12-HD00850).
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Received for publication Jun 26, 2000; accepted Nov 16, 2000.
Address correspondence to Timothy G. G. Ferris, MD, MPH, Institute for Health Policy, Division of General Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford St, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail: tferris{at}partners.org
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
MGH, Massachusetts General Hospital; MBCBS, Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield; ICD-9, International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
-
Kuttner R
Must good HMOs go bad? First of two parts: the
commercialization of prepaid group health care.
N Engl
J Med.
1998;
338:1558-1563
[Free Full Text] - Starfield B. Primary Care: Concept, Evaluation and Policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992
- Kerr EA, Hays RD, Mitchinson A, Lee M, Siu AL The influence of gatekeeping and utilization review on patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14:287-296 [CrossRef][Medline]
-
Grumbach K,
Selby JV,
Damberg C,
Resolving the gatekeeper
conundrum: what patients value in primary care and referrals to
specialists.
JAMA.
1999;
282:261-266
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Hurley RE, Gage BJ, Freund DA Rollover effects in gatekeeper programs: cushioning the impact of restricted choice. Inquiry. 1991; 28:375-384 [Medline]
- Scanlon DP, Chernew M, Lave JR Consumer health plan choice: current knowledge and future directions. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997; 18:507-528 [CrossRef][Medline]
- Hurley RE, Freund DA, Gage BJ Gate keeper effects on patterns of physician use. J Fam Pract. 1991; 32:167-174 [Medline]
- Wilensky GR, Rossiter LF Patient self-selection in HMOs. Health Aff (Millwood). 1986; 5:66-80 [CrossRef][Medline]
- Buchanan JL, Cretin S Risk selection of families electing HMO membership. Med Care. 1986; 24:39-51 [CrossRef][Medline]
-
West DW,
Stuart ME,
Duggan AK,
DeAngelis CD
Evidence for selective
health maintenance organization enrollment among children and
adolescents covered by Medicaid.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
1996;
150:503-507
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Martin DP,
Diehr P,
Price KF,
Richardson WC
Effect of a gatekeeper
plan on health services use and charges: a randomized trial.
Am J Public Health
1989;
79:1628-1632
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Forrest CB,
Glade GB,
Starfield B,
Baker AE,
Kang M,
Reid RJ
Gate
keeping and referral of children and adolescents to specialty care.
Pediatrics.
1999;
104:28-34
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Perrin JM,
Kuhlthau K,
McLaughlin TJ,
Changing patterns of
conditions among children receiving Supplemental Security Income.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
1999;
153:80-84
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Kuhlthau K,
Perrin JM,
Ettner SL,
McLaughlin TJ,
Gortmaker SL
High-expenditure children with supplemental security income.
Pediatrics.
1998;
102:610-615
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Liang KY,
Zeger SL
Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear
models.
Biometrika.
1986;
73:13-22
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Newhouse JP, Sloss EM, Manning WG, Keeler EB Risk adjustment for a children's capitation rate. Health Care Finance Rev. 1993; 15:39-54
-
Simon SR,
Pan RJ,
Sullivan AM,
Views of managed care-a survey
of students, residents, faculty, and deans at medical schools in the
United States.
N Engl J Med.
1999;
340:928-936
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Halm EA,
Causino N,
Blumenthal D
Is gatekeeping better than
traditional care? A survey of physicians' attitudes.
JAMA.
1997;
278:1677-1681
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Burstin HR, Swartz K, AC ON, Orav EJ, Brennan TA The effect of change of health insurance on access to care. Inquiry 1998; 35:389-397
- Lurie N, Ward NB, Shapiro F, Gallego C, Vaighaiwalla R, Brook RH Termination of Medi-Cal benefits: a follow-up study one year later. N Engl J Med. 1986; 314:1226-1228 [Abstract]
-
Emanuel EJ,
Brett AS
Managed competition and the patient-physician
relationship.
N Engl J Med
1993;
329:879-882
[Free Full Text] -
LaPuma J
Anticipated changes in the doctor-patient relationship in the
managed care managed competition of the Health Security Act of 1993.
Arch Fam Med
1994;
3:665-671
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Reed C. Why People Change Their Health Care Providers. Data Bulletin, Results from HSC Research. 2000;1-2
- Franks P, Clancy CM, Nutting PA Gate keeping revisited-protecting patients from overtreatment. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327:424-429 [Medline]
-
Miller TR,
Lestina DC,
Galbraith MS
Patterns of childhood medical
spending.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
1995;
149:369-373
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Kuhlthau KA, Ferris TG, Beal AC, Gortmaker SL, Perrin JM. Who cares for Medicaid-enrolled children with chronic conditions? Pediatrics. 2001. In press
Pediatrics (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright ©2001 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. A. Schuster, P. J. Chung, M. N. Elliott, C. F. Garfield, K. D. Vestal, and D. J. Klein Perceived Effects of Leave From Work and the Role of Paid Leave Among Parents of Children With Special Health Care Needs Am J Public Health, April 1, 2009; 99(4): 698 - 705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. A. Schuster, P. J. Chung, M. N. Elliott, C. F. Garfield, K. D. Vestal, and D. J. Klein Awareness and Use of California's Paid Family Leave Insurance Among Parents of Chronically Ill Children JAMA, September 3, 2008; 300(9): 1047 - 1055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. J. Chung, C. F. Garfield, M. N. Elliott, C. Carey, C. Eriksson, and M. A. Schuster Need for and Use of Family Leave Among Parents of Children With Special Health Care Needs Pediatrics, May 1, 2007; 119(5): e1047 - e1055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Jeffrey and P. W. Newacheck Role of Insurance for Children With Special Health Care Needs: A Synthesis of the Evidence Pediatrics, October 1, 2006; 118(4): e1027 - e1038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. H. Wise The Transformation Of Child Health In The United States Health Aff., September 1, 2004; 23(5): 9 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. F. Brown, S. L. Ettner, J. Piette, M. Weinberger, E. Gregg, M. F. Shapiro, A. J. Karter, M. Safford, B. Waitzfelder, P. A. Prata, et al. Socioeconomic Position and Health among Persons with Diabetes Mellitus: A Conceptual Framework and Review of the Literature Epidemiol. Rev., July 1, 2004; 26(1): 63 - 77. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kuhlthau, R. M. Nyman, T. G. Ferris, A. C. Beal, and J. M. Perrin Correlates of Use of Specialty Care Pediatrics, March 1, 2004; 113(3): e249 - 255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E Peile The future of primary care paediatrics and child health Arch. Dis. Child., February 1, 2004; 89(2): 113 - 115. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Mayer, A. Cockrell Skinner, and R. T. Slifkin Unmet Need for Routine and Specialty Care: Data From the National Survey of Children With Special Health Care Needs Pediatrics, February 1, 2004; 113(2): e109 - 115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kuhlthau, T. G. G. Ferris, and L. I. Iezzoni Risk Adjustment for Pediatric Quality Indicators Pediatrics, January 1, 2004; 113(1/S1): 210 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. B Forrest Primary care in the United States: Primary care gatekeeping and referrals: effective filter or failed experiment? BMJ, March 29, 2003; 326(7391): 692 - 695. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Pati, S. Shea, D. Rabinowitz, and O. Carrasquillo Does Gatekeeping Control Costs for Privately Insured Children? Findings From the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Pediatrics, March 1, 2003; 111(3): 456 - 460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. Zarin Is the Gatekeeper Useful? AAP Grand Rounds, December 1, 2002; 8(6): 68 - 69. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. G. Ferris, Y. Chang, J. M. Perrin, D. Blumenthal, and S. D. Pearson Effects of Removing Gatekeeping on Specialist Utilization by Children in a Health Maintenance Organization Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, June 1, 2002; 156(6): 574 - 579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. G. Ferris, Y. Chang, D. Blumenthal, and S. D. Pearson Leaving Gatekeeping Behind -- Effects of Opening Access to Specialists for Adults in a Health Maintenance Organization N. Engl. J. Med., November 1, 2001; 345(18): 1312 - 1317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
