|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
State regulation of hospital revenue is one approach to cost containment on which there is voluminous evaluative data from the "laboratory of the states"; yet these data are sufficiently complex and ambiguous that they are claimed by both proponents and opponents of rate-setting as support for their respective cases. This paper summarizes the evidence, concluding that mandatory rate-setting has generally constrained hospital costs where it has been implemented. However, were rate-setting established in additional states, it is not clear that comparable results would be realized. It is still less clear that rate-setting would constrain health care costs more than would increased competition and selective contracting.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. S. Wallack, K. C. Skwara, and J. Cai Redefining Rate Regulation in a Competitive Environment Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, September 1, 1996; 21(3): 489 - 510. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. D. Rosko, R. W. Broyles, and W. E. Aaronson Prospective Payment Based on Case Mix: Will It Work in Nursing Homes? Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1987; 12(4): 683 - 702. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
|
|