Use of risk adjustment in setting budgets and measuring performance in primary care II: Advantages, disadvantages, and practicalities

British Medical Journal

Volumn 323, Issue 7313, 2001, Pages 607-610

  Majeed, A ^a   Bindman, A B ^b   Weiner, J P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUDGET; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0035885082     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.607     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Use of risk adjustment in setting budgets and measuring performance in primary care I: How it works
2. Paying more fairly for Medicare capitated care
3. The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling: When good apples look bad
4. Patients at risk: Health reform and risk adjustment
5. "Carving out" conditions from global capitation rates: Protecting high-cost patients, physicians and health plans in a managed care environment
6. Pediatric carveouts. The use of disease-specific conditions as risk adjusters in capitated payment systems
7. California's beleaguered physician groups - Will they survive?
8. Selective chaos
9. Taking health status into account when setting capitation rates