You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Getting More For Their Dollar: A Comparison Of The NHS With California's Kaiser Permanente
Richard G. A. Feachem, Neelam K. Sekhri and Karen L. White
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Vol. 324, No. 7330 (Jan. 19, 2002), pp. 135-141
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25227202
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Health care costs, Health care industry, Primary health care, Physicians, Hospital admissions, Health care waiting times, Claims adjustment, Diseases, Socioeconomics, Managed care
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Objective To compare the costs and performance of the NHS with those of an integrated system for financing and delivery health services (Kaiser Permanente) in California. Methods The adjusted costs of the two systems and their performance were compared with respect to inputs, use, access to services, responsiveness, and limited quality indicators. Results The per capita costs of the two systems, adjusted for differences in benefits, special activities, population characteristics, and the cost environment, were similar to within 10%. Some aspects of performance differed. In particular, Kaiser members experience more comprehensive and convenient primary care services and much more rapid access to specialist services and hospital admissions. Age adjusted rates of use of acute hospital services in Kaiser were one third of those in the NHS. Conclusions The widely held beliefs that the NHS is efficient and that poor performance in certain areas is largely explained by underinvestment are not supported by this analysis. Kaiser achieved better performance at roughly the same cost as the NHS because of integration throughout the system, efficient management of hospital use, the benefits of competition, and greater investment in information technology.
BMJ: British Medical Journal © 2002 BMJ