FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 334:1060-1063 April 18, 1996 Number 16 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Woolhandler, S. Related Article by Robinson, J. C. Related Article by Weston, B. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: In response to the editorial by Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein (Dec. 21 issue),¹ we would like to point out that financial incentives have always been a part of fee-for-service medicine — a reality that seems to have been ignored until the recent growth of managed care. Fee-for-service medicine rewards the volume as opposed to the outcome of care provided. Although more care does not necessarily lead to better outcomes, this perverse incentive is inherent in fee-for-service medicine. Unless one advocates a system in which physicians are paid a fixed compensation by the government, as proposed by the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.