A second look at the dichotomy between consumers and providers in an HSA.

Abstract

A study of the voting behavior of both consumers and providers involved in an HSA review committee is undertaken to determine the amount of voting cohesion (solidarity) demonstrated by these two basic interest groups as well as the directions in review decisions desired by both of these groups. The case study, involving the third largest HSA in the country, attempts to discern whether the theory of interest group liberalism can be used to describe correctly consumer and provider behavior relative to review decisions. The conclusions reached are that (1) consumers and providers do have differences in their intra-group voting cohesion, but that more importantly (2) they vote for the same end results in terms of approving or denying project reviews. The paper suggests that rational decision tools can play more of an effective role in achieving cost containment.