There is a widespread belief that alternative dispute resolution methods, particularly mandatory binding arbitration agreements, have become the rule in health care delivery. This apparent trend has spurred vigorous debate about the merits of using such agreements. This study is an effort to ascertain how widespread mandatory arbitration agreements between health plans and providers and their enrollees and patients really are, to assess how decisions regarding their use are made, and to evaluate the prospects for their future use. This study found that contrary to popular belief, arbitration agreements are not widely used in the medical setting, and that when they are used, it is typically because organizational policy explicitly directs their use.
Originally published in: Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 60, no. 1, Winter 1997, pp. 153-179.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
The RAND Corporation 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.