Do Patients Benefit from Second Opinion Programs?
ResearchPublished 1981
The author offers a model of patient decisionmaking and uses it to demonstrate several propositions: (1) second opinion programs redistribute welfare; (2) second opinion programs redistribute financial as well as medical welfare; (3) whatever the standards one might set for surgical necessity, second opinion programs probably eliminate surgeries that meet the standard as well as those that do not; (4) programs are far more likely to reduce reimbursement costs for some types of surgery than for others, and the effects on reimbursement costs are likely to vary among types of programs and among communities; and (5) the effects of second opinion programs depend in part on how a panel of second opinion physicians is selected from the larger population of physicians. Three distinct types of second opinion programs are examined. For each type of program the author identifies the conditions under which reimbursement costs would rise or fall, how welfare is redistributed, and how the selection of a second opinion physicians' panel can affect outcomes.
Topics
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Available
- Year: 1981
- Print Format: Paperback
- Paperback Pages: 38
- Paperback Price: $20.00
- Document Number: P-6602
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
Palmer, Adele, Do Patients Benefit from Second Opinion Programs? RAND Corporation, P-6602, 1981. As of October 10, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6602.html
Palmer, Adele, Do Patients Benefit from Second Opinion Programs? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1981. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6602.html. Also available in print form.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.