Improving Doctor Ratings
posted by Frank Pasquale
I recently wrote about potential shortcomings of doctor-rating schemes. I’m glad to see that NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is addressing the issue:
An investigation by Mr. Cuomo’s office found that various doctor-rating systems currently used or planned by insurers are based primarily on the cost of care, not its quality. Doctors may be awarded a grade or stars, much like a restaurant or movie review, if they routinely treat sick patients for less than their competitors do. With that information, employers are able to steer their workers to lower-cost doctors by reducing deductibles or co-payments for those who patronize them.
Unfortunately, insurers seldom make clear just how they come up with their ratings, and there is no guarantee that the cheapest doctors are necessarily the best choice. Now the attorney general’s office has negotiated agreements with several major insurers, including Aetna, Cigna, UnitedHealthcare and Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield, that should make the ratings systems more useful to consumers and fairer to doctors.
Some are skeptical of intervention. For example, someone might argue that problematic rating systems should just be addressed by more ranking systems–or that rating systems have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want. However, if a certain ranking system becomes dominant and very hard to displace, it’s not clear how multiple ranking systems help. Moreover, as I’ve discussed before, multiple ranking systems can create onerous reporting requirements. So I’m glad to see that Cuomo has realized that perhaps the real answer to defective ratings systems is regulatory pressure to reform, rather than faith that the market will deliver alternatives.
December 8, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Posted in: Health Law
Print This Post
Responses (1)
Maryland Conservatarian - December 8, 2007 at 5:53 pm
seriously, is there anything you believe won’t be helped by more regulation?
Leave a Reply