IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rio/texdis/413.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should we be afraid of managed care? A theoretical assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Marcos Lisboa

    (FGV)

  • Humberto Moreira

    (Department of Economics PUC-Rio)

Abstract

Managed care capitation contracts provide monetary incentives for doctors to save medical costs while standard health insurance contracts do not. The paper proposes an alternative model for insurance markets which is used to analyze managed care contracts. In our model, households would like to buy insurance for the possible need of a service. The distinctive aspect of our model is that providers of service have privileged information on the most appropriate procedure to be followed. In the managed care application of the model, doctors are the providers of the service and through a diagnosis have better information of the patient's health condition. Equilibrium in our model is always constrained eÆcient. A partial capitation contract arises when both the cost and net benefits of treatment are high enough. We show that a capitation contract provides incentives for doctors: i) to care about the likelihood households will obtain the good state of nature (altruistic behavior); and ii) to save medical costs (managed care behavior). Doctors, in this case, choose less medically eÆcient treatments as they would choose under a standard health insurance contract. Besides this, household' welfare is increased in comparison to the standard contract. This increased welfare translates into a revealed preference for the capitation contract.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcos Lisboa & Humberto Moreira, 2000. "Should we be afraid of managed care? A theoretical assessment," Textos para discussão 413, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).
  • Handle: RePEc:rio:texdis:413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/uploads/adm/trabalhos/files/td413.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rio:texdis:413. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpucrbr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.