Advertisement

The Role of the Federal Government in Peer Review

  • Patrick H. Deleon
  • Joan G. Willens
  • J. Jarrett Clinton
  • Gary R. Vandenbos

Abstract

This chapter reviews two roles that the federal government has adopted in the area of peer review: that of a purchaser of care and that of a provider of care. The authors note that, depending on the particular federal health-care program involved, those who have enacted the governing statute and those who currently administer the program may, or may not, have envisioned a substantial role for peer review. The issues of cost containment and assurance of quality care are intimately intertwined The development of peer review has genuinely been an evolutionary one, with the federal government frequently using its “purchasing power” to guide the system toward an envisioned but elusive goal. Within the U.S. Department of Defense, where the federal government serves as a provider of care, a number of innovative approaches have recently been adopted to systematically institute objective standards of performance and quality care.

Keywords

Federal Government Peer Review General Account Office Health Care Financing Administration Congressional Budget Office 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnett, R. H., III, Cowell, C. S., Davidoff, L. M., & Freeland, M. S. (1985, Spring). Health spending trends in the 1980’s: Adjusting to financial incentives. Health Care Financing Review, 6, 1–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bent, R. J., Willens, J. G., & Lassen, C. L. (1983). The Colorado clinical psychology/expanded mental health benefits experiment: An introductory comment. American Psychologist, 38, 1274–1278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claiborn, W. L., & Zaro, J. S. (1979). The development of a peer review system: The APA/CHAMPUS contract. In C. A. Kiesler, N. A. Cummings, & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Psychology and national health insurance: A sourcebook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  4. Committee on Finance Background Paper, (staff, 1985). The peer review organization (PRO) program.Prepared for the use of the Members of the Committee on Finance.Google Scholar
  5. Congressional Budget Office. (CBO). (1979). The effect of PSROs on health care costs: Current findings and further evaluation(background paper). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Constantine, J. (1981). Proposed phaseout of PSROs and utilization review requirements. Statement for the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Finance, on Professional Standards Review Organizations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  7. DeLeon, P. H. (1981). The medical expense deduction provision—Public policy in a vacuum? Professional Psychology, 12, 707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeLeon, P. H. (1983). The changing and creating of legislation: The political process. In B. Sales (Ed.), The professional psychologist’s handbook. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  9. DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBos, G. R. (1980). Psychotherapy reimbursement in federal programs: Political factors. In G. R. VandenBos (Ed.), Psychotherapy: Practice, research, policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBos, G. R. (1984). Public health policy and behavioral health. In J. D. Matarazzo, J. A. Herd, N. E. Miller, & S. M. Weiss (Eds.), Behavioral health: A handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. DeLeon, P. H., Frohboese, R., & Meyers, J. C. (1984). Psychologist on Capital Hill: A unique use of the skills of the scientist/practitioner. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeLeon, P. H., VandenBos, G. R., & Kraut, A. G. (1984). Federal legislation recognizing psychology. American Psychologist, 39, 933–946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLeon, P. H., Forsythe, P., & VandenBos, G. R. (1986). Federal recognition of psychology in rehabilitation programs. Rehabilitation Psychology, 31, 47–56.Google Scholar
  14. Desmarais, H. (1986). Testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Fiscal Year 1987 Budget Request for HCFA. (Senate Hearings 99-850, Pt. 2, pp. 949–1032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  15. Devine, D. J. (1983). Testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services (Senate Hearings 98-688). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  16. General Accounting Office (GAO). (1983). Financial and other problems facing the federal employees health insurance program(GAO/HRD-83-21). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. General Accounting Office (GAO). (1985). Constraining national health care expenditures: Achieving quality care at an affordable cost(GAO/HRD-85-105). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Grupenhoff, J. T. (1983). Profile of congressional health legislative aides. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 50, 1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Inouye, D. K. (1983). Mental health care: Access, stigma, and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 38, 912–917.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Institute of Medicine. (IOM). (1974). Advancing the quality of health care: Key issues and fundamental principles(IOM Publication 74-04). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. Institute of Medicine. (IOM). (1976). Assessing quality in health care: An evaluation(IOM Publication 76-04). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. Kiesler, C. A., Cummings, N. A., & VandenBos, G. R. (Eds.). (1979). Psychology and national health insurance: A sourcebook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  23. Lohr, K. N. (1985). Peer review organizations (PROs): Quality assurance in medicare.Working paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
  24. O’Sullivan, J. (1981). Professional standards review organizations and utilization review: FY82 administration budget proposals(Library of Congress mini brief number MB81232).Google Scholar
  25. O’Sullivan, J. (1982). Medicare and Medicaid provisions of the “tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1983” (P.L 97-248)(Library of Congress Report No. 82-173 EPW).Google Scholar
  26. Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (ProPac). (1985). 1986 Adjustments to the Medicare Prospective Payment System: Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (ProPac). (1986). Medicare Prospective Payment and the American Health Care System: Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Rodriguez, A. R. (1983). Psychological and psychiatric peer review at CHAMPUS. American Psychologist, 38, 941–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1985a). First Report on the Prospective Assessment Commission (ProPac). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1985b). Medicare’s Prospective Payment System: Strategies for Evaluating Cost, Quality, and Medical Technology (OTA-H-262). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1986). Second Report on the Prospective Assessment Commission (ProPAC). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). (1970). Medicare and Medicaid—Problems, issues, and alternatives(report of the staff to the Senate Committee on Finance). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). (1978). Proposals to expand coverage of mental health under Medicare-Medicaid(hearings before Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  34. VandenBos, G. R. (1983). Health financing, service utilization, and national policy: A conversation with Stan Jones. American Psychologist, 38, 948–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Willens, J. G., & DeLeon, P. H. (1982). Political aspects of peer review. Professional Psychology, 13, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young, D. A. (1985). Address at the American Psychological Association Public Policy Forum. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick H. Deleon
    • 1
  • Joan G. Willens
    • 2
  • J. Jarrett Clinton
    • 3
  • Gary R. Vandenbos
    • 4
  1. 1.Office of Senator Daniel K. InouyeUSA
  2. 2.Private practiceBeverly HillsUSA
  3. 3.The Pentagon, Department of DefenseOffice of Health AffairsUSA
  4. 4.American Psychological AssociationUSA

Personalised recommendations