Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1993 18(1):113-174; DOI:10.1215/03616878-18-1-113
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (11)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oliver, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Duke University Press

Analysis, Advice, and Congressional Leadership: The Physician Payment Review Commission and the Politics of Medicare

Thomas R. Oliver
University of Maryland Graduate School

In 1985, Congress established the Physician Payment Review Commission (PPRC) to help formulate changes in the system used by Medicare to pay for physician services. The recommendations of the PPRC and subsequent legislative action led to fundamental reform. As a new type of advisory body, the PPRC enabled Congress to establish an agenda for physician payment reform and set it into law despite initial resistance from the executive branch. Four key factors contributed to the influence of the commission: (1) an institutional design that enhanced and integrated congressional policy formulation; (2) the quality of the information generated for legislative deliberation; (3) the open, consensual process the commission used to translate that information into policy recommendations; and (4) the strategic packaging of the proposals for reform. In the process leading to enactment of the new payment system, the commission skillfully bridged the traditionally segmented roles of neutral analyst and political advisor for legislators pursuing Medicare reform. Implementation of physician payment reform has been largely an administrative responsibility, in which the PPRC has played a minimal role. The complexity and ambiguity of some of the legislative provisions have left room for administrative officials and interest groups to maneuver according to their priorities. Thus, despite congressional efforts to design a tightly controlled system, a considerable amount of work remains to assure its technical and political success.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
M. J. Laugesen
Siren Song: Physicians, Congress, and Medicare Fees
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, April 1, 2009; 34(2): 157 - 179.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
M. A. Peterson
The Limits of Social Learning: Translating Analysis into Action
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1997; 22(4): 1077 - 1114.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Arch DermatolHome page
L. A. Drake, K. P. Yale, and R. Gillies
The Future of Medicare: Their Plans, Your Practice, Medicare Reform, and How It Will Affect the Practice of Dermatology
Arch Dermatol, September 1, 1996; 132(9): 1094 - 1098.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
J. A. Morone
The Health Care Bureaucracy: Small Changes, Big Consequences
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1993; 18(3): 723 - 739.
[Abstract] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1993 by Duke University Press