On the recordMarch 23, 1994
It does. I think there are some that would help indirectly and one or two that would help directly. Let me just mention them. First, giving every consumer three choices will make a big difference, saying that every consumer has to have at least three choices and that one of those choices must always be fee-for-service. We'll put all these plans in competition with one another, and that will make a difference. Secondly, making it easier for physicians to provide these services directly will dramatically minimize the ability of the insurance companies to add to the cost and delay and undermine the quality of health care by second-guessing everything the doctors want to do in the HMO's that they're promoting--[inaudible]--in our plan that the insurance companies disclose what's in their utilization review protocol in advance so people can evaluate that and know what's going on and argue against it. And competing plans, including competing physicians groups, can say, here's why this is a bad deal for you and why you shouldn't take it and why it is going to add to the cost and undermine the quality of health care. Now, all these are things, I think, that will really make a difference. Most doctors I know recognize that from time to time there are certain things that ought to be subject to some kind of review. But basically, it's gone crazy now. It's become an instrument of denying service when it's needed. So what we've tried to do is strike the right balance here, and I hope we have.
Source
govinfo.gov




