We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Managed Care Plan Performance Since 1980 A Literature Analysis

Robert H. Miller, PhD; Harold S. Luft, PhD
JAMA. 1994;271(19):1512-1519. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510430066037.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Objective.  —To compare the health care utilization, expenditure, quality of care, and satisfaction since 1980 of enrollees in managed care and indemnity plans.

Data Sources and Study Selection.  —Studies selected met the following criteria: data from 1980 forward, private insurance or Medicare enrollees, a comparison group, a reasonable attempt at statistical adjustment for noncomparable managed care and indemnity plan enrollees, and peer-reviewed findings (with two exceptions). Few studies on preferred provider organization plan performance met the selection criteria.

Data Synthesis.  —Compared with indemnity plans, health maintenance organization plans had somewhat lower hospital admission rates, 1% to 20% shorter hospital length of stay, the same or more physician office visits per enrollee, less use of expensive procedures and tests, greater use of preventive services, mixed results on outcomes, and somewhat lower enrollee satisfaction with services but higher satisfaction with costs. The evidence does not support the hypothesis that prepaid group practice or staff model health maintenance organizations are more effective than individual practice association or network model health maintenance organizations.

Conclusions.  —Although this literature analysis found several clear patterns of results, several factors, including unmeasured selection bias, diverse and rapidly changing health plans and local market conditions, and relatively few research results, suggest that generalizations must be made with caution.(JAMA. 1994;271:1512-1519)


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.