Managing the ethics of managed healthcare:  A systemic approach.

Doherty, William J.; Heinrich, Richard L.

doi:10.1037/h0089819

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Without initially realizing it ourselves, we applied a similar approach when developing a collaborative relationship with the MCO, albeit on a much broader scale involving multiple relationships (Doherty & Heinrich, 1996;Tresolini & the Pew-Fetzer Task Force, 1994). It proved to be an effective tool to promote mutual understanding between the research team and the organization.…”

Section: Practical Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of this article is to describe the multidimensional systems and relational issues (Doherty & Heinrich, 1996;Tresolini & the Pew-Fetzer Task Force, 1994;Weitekamp & Ziegenfuss, 1995) we encountered in negotiating research access in a managed care setting and the practical strategies we used for successful collaboration with the MCO for our pilot intervention. Specifically, we will describe how aspects of the relationship-centered approach (Tresolini & the Pew-Fetzer Task Force, 1994) that formed the cornerstone of our experimental intervention with patients also were used to facilitate a cooperative relationship with the managed care organization, and that we needed to go well beyond the dyadic provider-patient relationship (Doherty & Heinrich, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, we will describe how aspects of the relationship-centered approach (Tresolini & the Pew-Fetzer Task Force, 1994) that formed the cornerstone of our experimental intervention with patients also were used to facilitate a cooperative relationship with the managed care organization, and that we needed to go well beyond the dyadic provider-patient relationship (Doherty & Heinrich, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Building research relationships with managed care organizations: Issues and strategies.

Lein

Collins

Lyles

et al. 2003

Families, Systems, & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managed care is now the dominant form of healthcare in the United States. The need for clinical research about the organization, delivery, and outcomes of primary care services in managed care models is high, yet access to managed care organizations as sites for clinical research may be problematic. The purpose of this article is to describe issues involved in obtaining access to managed care settings for clinical research and practical strategies for successful collaboration using literature review and case description. Three steps for developing collaborative relationships with managed care organizations (MCOs) are presented: 1) assessment of organizational structure, history, and culture; 2) finding common ground; and 3) project implementation. These steps are discussed within the context of MCO systems issues and a relationship-centered approach to communication between researchers and individuals from the MCO. Successful relationships with MCOs for clinical research are possible when careful attention is paid to inclusion of MCOs as collaborators in the development of the research questions and design, and as partners in the research implementation process.

show abstract

Section: Practical Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Building research relationships with managed care organizations: Issues and strategies.

Lein

Collins

Lyles

et al. 2003

Families, Systems, & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such decisions not only involve cost containment and access issues but are embedded in family dynamics and culturally related values associated with death and dying (Koenig, 1997), requiring a broader ethical perspective with a family focus in end-of-life decision-making. While all members of the health care team, patients and family members included, have a claim for a role in such decision-making, traditional clinical ethics and its dyadic focus on the physician-patient relationship is a bit narrow and insufficient (Doherty & Heinrich, 1996). Although there is more of an interdisciplinary approach with bioethics consultants and ethics committees playing a relevant role, a tendency still exists toward a paternalistic approach in ethical decision-making with an emphasis on the biological rather than psychosocial aspects of ethical issues and dilemmas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating Psychosocial Insight into Ethical Discussions Supportive of Families in End-of-Life Decision-Making

Foster

McLellan²

2002

Social Work in Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large number of Americans would rather rely on family and friends more than their physicians about end-of-life care and decisions. Moving beyond traditional clinical ethics and its dyadic focus on the physician-patient relationship, this article presents an approach to ethical decision-making at the end of life that is more inclusive of the patient's family and has the potential to advance social work practice in end-of-life care. Initial attention is given to how psychosocial and bioethical perspectives and practices interact to shape understanding of moral issues in end-of-life decisions. Morally relevant principles are then adapted from contextual therapy as being useful for including more of a family focus and viewing ethical decision-making at the end of life as a family process. Specifically, focus is on exploring the ethical dynamics of family systems that impact the decision-making process and translating psychosocial insight into ethical discussions that are supportive of families. The case of a patient with sudden and unexpected brain death and without advance directives demonstrates one family's unresolved grief and illustrates how its members were helped to reason morally about end-of-life choices. Contributions of a social worker and bioethicist are illustrated.

show abstract

“…Political work must also be done to seek legislative and tort redress. Mental health professionals will have to work to remain stakeholders at the decision-making table, to advocate for the possibility that psychotherapy can remain an option for some (Doherty & Heinrich, 1996). We in the Guild, however, have become convinced that if we offer family therapy that preserves privacy and choice, families will seek us out, paying whatever they can, as they did in the years before psychotherapy became part of insurance coverage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Alternative to Managed Care: A “Guild” Model for the Independent Practice of Psychotherapy

Bittner

Bialek²,

Nathiel³

et al. 1999

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As health care is reconfigured by HMOs and managed care organizations, family therapists often have to decide whether or not to cooperate with the new power structures and their ways of doing things. The chief concern of many therapists is the ethical bind created when the managed care organization demands breaches of confidentiality or makes decisions about the course of treatment that may not, in the therapist's opinion, be in the best interest of the family. Associations of independent, nonmanaged care psychotherapists are springing up in response to these dilemmas. This paper describes the philosophical evolution and organizational development of one such association.

show abstract

Managing the ethics of managed healthcare: A systemic approach.

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

Building research relationships with managed care organizations: Issues and strategies.

Building research relationships with managed care organizations: Issues and strategies.

Translating Psychosocial Insight into Ethical Discussions Supportive of Families in End-of-Life Decision-Making

An Alternative to Managed Care: A “Guild” Model for the Independent Practice of Psychotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About